Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2026
Comparative safety and efficacy of invasive therapies for carotid artery stenosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Amran Muhammad Yunus, Fitrah Yusran Ady, Larassaphira Nabilah Puteri, Gunawan Andi Muh Aunul Khaliq, Abdillah Andi Muhammad Hanif, Toaha Aulia Rezky Mufidah, Zainal Ahmad Taufik Fadillah, Gunadi Siti Giranti Ardilia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenosis is a major cause of stroke and is commonly treated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS). Trans-carotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has emerged as a newer alternative designed to reduce the risk of procedural stroke. However, comparative evidence on the safety and efficacy of these interventions is limited. This study evaluates the clinical outcomes of CEA, CAS, and TCAR in patients with carotid artery stenosis.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of multiple databases was conducted to identify relevant studies. The outcomes were stroke, mortality, and myocardial infarction, cranial nerve injury, hematoma, infection, transient ischemic attack, and length of hospital stay. Meta-analysis and a frequentist graph-theoretical approach network meta-analysis were performed using the netmeta package in R platform. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 Cochrane and ROBINS-I.
RESULTS: Fifty-five studies were included in the review. The short-term stroke risk was significantly lower with CEA than with CAS. TCAR had a potential long-term mortality benefit over CAS, while no significant differences were observed in short-term mortality or myocardial infarction across treatments. CAS was associated with lower risks of cranial nerve injury, hematoma, and infection compared with CEA.
CONCLUSION: CEA and TCAR offer better short-term stroke protection than CAS, with TCAR showing promise for long-term mortality benefits. CAS has advantages in reducing cranial nerve injury, hematoma, and infection risks. Overall, the choice of treatment should consider both efficacy and safety profiles. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials, particularly focusing on TCAR, are needed to validate these comparative outcomes.
PROSPERO REGISTRY NUMBER: CRD420251055287.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of multiple databases was conducted to identify relevant studies. The outcomes were stroke, mortality, and myocardial infarction, cranial nerve injury, hematoma, infection, transient ischemic attack, and length of hospital stay. Meta-analysis and a frequentist graph-theoretical approach network meta-analysis were performed using the netmeta package in R platform. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 Cochrane and ROBINS-I.
RESULTS: Fifty-five studies were included in the review. The short-term stroke risk was significantly lower with CEA than with CAS. TCAR had a potential long-term mortality benefit over CAS, while no significant differences were observed in short-term mortality or myocardial infarction across treatments. CAS was associated with lower risks of cranial nerve injury, hematoma, and infection compared with CEA.
CONCLUSION: CEA and TCAR offer better short-term stroke protection than CAS, with TCAR showing promise for long-term mortality benefits. CAS has advantages in reducing cranial nerve injury, hematoma, and infection risks. Overall, the choice of treatment should consider both efficacy and safety profiles. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials, particularly focusing on TCAR, are needed to validate these comparative outcomes.
PROSPERO REGISTRY NUMBER: CRD420251055287.