RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated similar outcomes in terms of ischemic stroke incidence after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) in asymptomatic carotid disease, while CEA seems to be the first option for symptomatic carotid disease. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the incidence of silent cerebral microembolization detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) following these procedures. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases, including comparative studies involving symptomatic or asymptomatic patients undergoing either CEA or CAS and reporting on new cerebral ischemic lesions in postoperative MRI. The primary outcome was the newly detected cerebral ischemic lesions. Pooled effect estimates for all outcomes were calculated using the random-effects model. Prespecified random effects metaregression and subgroup analysis were conducted to examine the impact of moderator variables on the presence of new cerebral ischemic lesions. RESULTS: 25 studies reporting on a total of 1827 CEA and 1500 CAS interventions fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The incidence of new cerebral ischemic lesions was significantly lower after CEA compared to CAS, regardless of the time of MRI assessment (first 24 hours; OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.17-0.64, P < 0.001), (the first 72 hours, OR: 0.25, 95% CI 0.18-0.36, P < 0.001), (generally within a week after the operation; OR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.17-0.34, P < 0.001). Also, the rate of stroke (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.23-0.63, P < 0.001) and the presence of contralateral new cerebral ischemic lesions (OR: 0.16, 95% CI 0.08-0.32, P < 0.001) were less frequent after CEA. Subgroup analysis based on the study design and the use of embolic protection device during CAS showed consistently lower rates of new lesions after CEA. CONCLUSIONS: CEA demonstrates significant lower rates of new silent cerebral microembolization, as detected by MRI in postoperative period compared with CAS.
RESUMO
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared trans-carotid artery revascularization (TCAR) as an alternative approach to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with carotid artery disease. An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases including comparative studies with patients who underwent either TCAR or CEA. This meta-analysis is according to the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. Eight studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 7,606 and 7,048 patients in the TCAR and CEA groups, respectively. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-1.56, P = .81) and stroke (OR: 0.92, 95%CI 0.70-1.22, P = .57) were similar between the two groups, with low heterogeneity. The odds of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.18-2.71, P = .01) and cranial nerve injury were significantly higher in patients undergoing CEA compared with TCAR (OR: 4.11, 95% CI: 2.59-6.51, P < .001). The subgroup analysis according to symptomatic pre-intervention status revealed no statistically significant difference regarding 30-day mortality (symptomatic OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.40-2.07, P = .82, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.46-1.86, P = .83) and stroke (symptomatic OR: 0.88, 95% CI:0.47-1.64, P = .68, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.64-1.35, P = .70). TCAR offers an alternative treatment for patients with carotid artery stenosis with comparable to CEA mortality and stroke rates during a 30-day post-operative period.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The advent of endovascular techniques has revolutionized the care of patients with uncomplicated abdominal aortic aneurysms. This analysis compares the overall survival and the freedom from reintervention rate between open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular repair (EVAR) in patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies including patients who underwent either OSR or EVAR for uncomplicated AAA. All randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched cohort studies reporting on the outcomes of interest were considered eligible for inclusion. The systematic search of the literature was performed by 2 independent investigators in accordance with the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. We conducted 1-stage and 2-stage meta-analyses with Kaplan-Meier-derived time-to-event data and meta-analysis with a random-effects model. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 13 409 and 13 450 patients in the OSR and EVAR arms, respectively. Patients who underwent open repair had improved overall survival rates compared with those who underwent EVAR (hazard ratio [HR]=0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.88-0.98, p=0.004) during a mean follow-up of 53.8 (SD=29.8) months and this was validated by the 2-stage meta-analysis (HR=0.89, 95% CI=0.8-0.99, p=0.03, I2=62.25%). Splitting timepoint analysis suggested that EVAR offers better survival outcome compared with OSR in the first 11 months following elective intervention (HR=1.37, 95% CI=1.22-1.54, p<0.0001), while OSR offers a significant survival advantage after the 11-month timepoint and up to 180 months (HR=0.84, 95% CI=0.8-0.89, p<0.0001). Similarly, freedom from reintervention was found to be significantly better in EVAR patients (HR=1.28, 95% CI=1.14-1.44, p<0.0001) within the first 30 days. After the first month postrepair, however, OSR demonstrated higher freedom-from-reintervention rates compared with EVAR that remained significant for up to 168 months during follow-up (HR=0.73, 95% CI=0.66-0.79, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the first-year survival advantage of EVAR in patients undergoing elective AAA repair, OSR was associated with a late survival benefit and decreased risk for reintervention in long-term follow-up. CLINICAL IMPACT: Open surgical repair for uncomplicated abdominal aortic aneurysm offers better long-term outcomes in terms of survival and freedom from reintervention rate compared to the endovascular approach but in the first year it carries a higher risk of mortality. The novelty of our study lies that instead of comparing study-level effect estimates, we analyzed reconstructed individual patient-level data. This offered us the opportunity to perform our analyses with mathematically robust and flexible survival models, which was proved to be crucial since there was evidence of different hazard over time. Our findings underline the need for additional investigation to clarify the significance of open surgical repair when compared to the latest endovascular devices and techniques within the evolving era of minimally invasive procedures.
RESUMO
We present the case of an asymptomatic 54-year-old male, referred to our department for a follow-up cardiological consultation. Echocardiography assessment showed an unknown cavity adjacent to the lateral wall of the left ventricle. A large left atrial appendage was revealed in further investigations, and the treatment option was proved to be an impasse.
