Effect of Treatment Choice on Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes for Carotid Near-Occlusion: A Meta-Analysis.

Abstract

Current guidelines recommend best medical treatment (BMT) over revascularization for carotid near-occlusion (CNO); however, it remains unclear whether BMT, carotid artery stenting (CAS), or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the optimal treatment strategy. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare outcomes among patients with CNO receiving BMT, CAS, or CEA. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase were searched. English studies with ≥1 month follow-up, that used established CNO diagnostic guidelines, that provided outcomes by treatment, and in which 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculable were included. Studies on acute ischemic stroke (AIS) requiring emergent reperfusion therapy, nonatherosclerotic lesions, nonprimary research articles, non-English, and nonhuman studies were excluded. Outcomes were mortality, AIS, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction within and beyond 30 days, and restenosis. A generalized linear mixed model, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression were used to compare outcomes. Thirty-eight studies were included. Pooled rates for AIS beyond 30 days were 9.90% (95% CI, 4.31%-21.16%), 0.79% (95% CI, 0.24%-2.53%), and 0.80% (95% CI, 0.15%-4.07%) for BMT, CAS, and CEA, respectively. Subgroup analysis was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Meta-regression showed lower incidence favoring procedural intervention (CAS vs. BMT, P = 0.001; CEA vs. BMT, P = 0.003). Subgroup analysis for mortality beyond 30 days was also significant (P = 0.016) but meta-regression did not favor one treatment over another. Other outcomes were not statistically significant. Revascularization for CNO may decrease long-term stroke rates. Given that current guidelines are based on randomized controlled trials from the 1990s, updated randomized trials are warranted to determine the optimal treatment for CNO.