Annals of Surgery

Skip Navigation LinksHome > March 2015 - Volume 261 - Issue 3 > Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Restenosis Following Prio...
Annals of Surgery:
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000799
Original Articles

Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Restenosis Following Prior Ipsilateral Carotid Endarterectomy: An Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis

Fokkema, Margriet MD*,†; Vrijenhoek, Joyce E. P. MD*,‡,§; Den Ruijter, Hester M. PhD‡,¶; Groenwold, Rolf H. H. MD, PhD; Schermerhorn, Marc L. MD; Bots, Michiel L. MD, PhD; Pasterkamp, Gerard MD, PhD; Moll, Frans L. MD, PhD*; De Borst, Gert Jan MD, PhD*; the TREAT CARE Study Group

Collapse Box


Objective: To study perioperative results and restenosis during follow-up of carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA in an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis.

Background: The optimal treatment strategy for patients with restenosis after CEA remains unknown.

Methods: A comprehensive search of electronic databases (Medline, Embase) until July 1, 2013, was performed, supplemented by a review of references. Studies were considered for inclusion if they reported procedural outcome of CAS or CEA after prior ipsilateral CEA of a minimum of 5 patients. IPD were combined into 1 data set and an IPD meta-analysis was performed. The primary endpoint was perioperative stroke or death and the secondary endpoint was restenosis greater than 50% during follow-up, comparing CAS and CEA.

Results: In total, 13 studies were included, contributing to 1132 unique patients treated by CAS (10 studies, n = 653) or CEA (7 studies; n = 479). Among CAS and CEA patients, 30% versus 40% were symptomatic, respectively (P < 0.01). After adjusting for potential confounders, the primary endpoint did not differ between CAS and CEA groups (2.3% vs 2.7%, adjusted odds ratio 0.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.4–1.8). Also, the risk of restenosis during a median follow-up of 13 months was similar for both groups (hazard ratio 1.4, 95% (CI): 0.9–2.2). Cranial nerve injury (CNI) was 5.5% in the CEA group, while CAS was in 5% associated with other procedural related complications.

Conclusions: In patients with restenosis after CEA, CAS and CEA showed similar low rates of stroke, death, and restenosis at short-term follow-up. Still, the risk of CNI and other procedure-related complications should be taken into account.

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.


Article Tools


Article Level Metrics

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.