Abstract
Stenting has increasingly been used for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis, although it is still unknown whether it is as safe and successful as carotid endarterectomy. Several studies have been published, and the preliminary results have been variable, with evidence both in favor of and against this procedure. In the past few months, primary outcome data have been published from two large European randomized multicenter trials (SPACE and EVA-3S). So far, both of these trials have evaluated whether carotid stenting shows noninferiority compared with carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with severe carotid disease over a period of 30 days after intervention. In this Review, we summarize current knowledge on effectiveness of both procedures, and provide an updated meta-analysis based on randomized trial data, including SPACE and EVA-3S. This meta-analysis shows a lower procedure-related rate of stroke or death in surgically treated patients. The long-term risk/benefit ratio of carotid stenting remains to be determined. Two other randomized multicenter trials—ICSS and CREST—are ongoing. With an intended sample size of up to 7,000 patients, future meta-analyses will allow more-accurate treatment recommendations and subgroup analysis.
Key Points
-
Carotid artery stenting has become the endovascular technique of choice for treatment of carotid artery stenosis, but there is ongoing controversy as to whether or not this procedure is as safe and effective as carotid endarterectomy
-
The first results of two large randomized multicenter trials evaluating the noninferiority of endovascular treatment compared with endarterectomy in symptomatic patients—SPACE and EVA-3S—were recently published
-
The 30-day results of the SPACE trial showed similar rates of the primary end point “ipsilateral ischemic stroke or death” for the two procedures, whereas in the EVA-3S study a significantly higher periprocedural risk was observed in the stenting group
-
An updated meta-analysis of seven randomized trials that compared the effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy and stenting, mostly in symptomatic patients, reveals a significant disadvantage of endovascular treatment for the end point “any stroke and death within 30 days after treatment”, but the risk of the end point “disabling stroke and death” was similar in the two groups
-
Patients enrolled and treated in the SPACE and EVA-3S trial are currently undergoing follow-up, and the first results of two ongoing trials, the ICSS and CREST, are expected in 2008
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
[No authors listed] (1991) Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. The North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. N Engl J Med 325: 445–453
[No authors listed] (1991) MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial: interim results for symptomatic patients with severe (70–99%) or with mild (0–29%) carotid stenosis. European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group. Lancet 337: 1235–1243
Rothwell PM et al. (2003) Analysis of pooled data from the randomised controlled trials of endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. Lancet 361: 107–116
Tu JV et al. (2003) Risk factors for death or stroke after carotid endarterectomy: observations from the Ontario Carotid Endarterectomy Registry. Stroke 34: 2568–2573
Sacco RL et al. (2006) Guidelines for prevention of stroke in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Council on Stroke: co-sponsored by the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: the American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline. Stroke 37: 577–617
Hennerici M et al. (1987) Natural history of asymptomatic extracranial arterial disease: results of a long-term prospective study. Brain 110: 777–791
Chambers BR and Norris JW (1986) Outcome in patients with asymptomatic neck bruits. N Engl J Med 315: 860–865
[No authors listed] (1995) Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Executive Committee for the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study. JAMA 273: 1421–1428
Rothwell PM (2004) ACST: which subgroups will benefit most from carotid endarterectomy? Lancet 364: 1122–1123
Coward LJ et al. (2005) Safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment of carotid artery stenosis compared with carotid endarterectomy: a Cochrane systematic review of the randomised evidence. Stroke 36: 905–911
Poppert H et al. (2004) Differences in number, size and location of intracranial microembolic lesions after surgical versus endovascular treatment without protection device of carotid artery stenosis. J Neurol 251: 1198–1203
[No authors listed] (2001) Endovascular versus surgical treatment in patients with carotid stenosis in the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS): a randomised trial. Lancet 357: 1729–1737
Naylor AR et al. (1998) Randomised study of carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: a stopped trial. J Vasc Surg 28: 326–334
Brooks WH et al. (2001) Carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: randomised trial in a community hospital. J Am Coll Cardiol 38: 1589–1595
Brooks WH et al. (2004) Carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy for treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a randomised trial in a community hospital. Neurosurgery 54: 318–325
Alberts MJ (2001) Results of a multicenter prospective randomised trial of carotid artery stenting vs. carotid endarterectomy [abstract #53]. Stroke 32: a325
CaRESS Steering Committee (2005) Carotid Revascularization Using Endarterectomy or Stenting Systems (CaRESS) phase I clinical trial: 1-year results. J Vasc Surg 42: 213–219
Kastrup A et al. (2003) Early outcome of carotid angioplasty and stenting with and without cerebral protection devices: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke 34: 813–819
Kastrup A et al. (2006) Incidence of new brain lesions after carotid stenting with and without cerebral protection. Stroke 37: 2312–2316
Mas J-L et al. (2004) Carotid angioplasty and stenting with and without cerebral protection: clinical alert from the Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis (EVA-3S) trial. Stroke 35: e18–e20
Yadav JS et al. (2004) Protected carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high risk patients. New Engl J Med 351: 1493–1501
Sam G et al. (2004) Natural history of asymptomatic extracranial arterial disease—25 years follow up. Cerebrovascular Dis 17 (Suppl 5): 21–22
SPACE Collaborative Group; Ringleb PA et al. (2006) 30 day results from the SPACE trial of stent-protected angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 368: 1239–1247
Mas J-L et al. (2006) Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med 355: 1660–1671
Qureshi AI et al. (2005) Carotid angioplasty with or without stent placement versus carotid endarterectomy for treatment of carotid stenosis: a meta-analysis. Neurosurgery 56: 1171–1179
Featherstone RL et al. (2004) International Carotid Stenting Study: protocol for a randomised clinical trial comparing carotid stenting with endearterectomy in symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Cerebrovascular Diseases 18: 69–74
Hobson RW Jr (2000) CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial): background, design, and current status. Semin Vasc Surg 14: 139–143
Hobson RW Jr et al. (2004) Carotid artery stenting is associated with increased complications in octogenarians: 30-day stroke and death rates in the CREST lead-in phase. J Vasc Surg 40: 1106–1111
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
PA Ringleb, W Hacke and M Hennerici were involved in the SPACE trial and have received fees from Sanofi-Aventis. J-L Mas is the Principal Investigator of the EVA-3S study, which was supported by a grant from the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique of the French Ministry of Health (AOM 97066), Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris. R Kern declared in has no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kern, R., Ringleb, P., Hacke, W. et al. Stenting for carotid artery stenosis. Nat Rev Neurol 3, 212–220 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpneuro0470
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpneuro0470
This article is cited by
-
Karotisstenose
Der Internist (2009)
-
Positionspapier der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Schlaganfallforschung
Gefässchirurgie (2008)
-
Stent-protected angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis: meta-analysis of randomized trial data
European Radiology (2008)
-
Positionspapier der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Schlaganfallforschung
Gefässchirurgie (2008)
-
High rate of restenosis after carotid artery stenting in patients with high-grade internal carotid artery stenosis
Journal of Neurology (2008)