Meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis of outcomes of carotid endarterectomy and stenting in the elderly.

IMPORTANCE: Uncertainty exists about the influence of advanced age on the outcomes of carotid revascularization. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a comprehensive review of the literature and conduct an analysis of the outcomes of carotid interventions in the elderly. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify articles comparing early outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid stenting (CAS) in elderly and young patients. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using fixed or random effects models. Meta-regression models were formed to explore potential heterogeneity as a result of changes in practice over time. RESULTS Our analysis comprised 44 studies reporting data on 512,685 CEA and 75,201 CAS procedures. Carotid stenting was associated with increased incidence of stroke in elderly patients compared with their young counterparts (odds ratio [OR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.40-1.75), whereas CEA had equivalent cerebrovascular outcomes in old and young age groups (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99). Carotid stenting had similar peri-interventional mortality risks in old and young patients (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72-1.03), whereas CEA was associated with heightened mortality in elderly patients (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.77). The incidence of myocardial infarction was increased in patients of advanced age in both CEA and CAS (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.57-1.72 and OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.45, respectively). Meta-regression analyses revealed a significant effect of publication date on peri-interventional stroke (P = .003) and mortality (P < .001) in CAS. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Age should be considered when planning a carotid intervention. Carotid stenting has an increased risk of adverse cerebrovascular events in elderly patients but mortality equivalent to younger patients. Carotid endarterectomy is associated with similar neurologic outcomes in elderly and young patients, at the expense of increased mortality.

Meta-analysis of outcomes of endovascular treatment of infrapopliteal occlusive disease with drug-eluting stents.

PURPOSE: To review emerging evidence regarding the use of bare metal (BMS) vs. drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of infrapopliteal occlusive disease. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify all studies comparing stent treatments of infragenicular vessels in patients with chronic lower limb ischemia. Validated methods to assess the methodological quality of the included studies were applied. Outcome data were pooled, and combined overall effect sizes were calculated using fixed or random effects models. The search identified 4 randomized clinical trials and 2 observational studies reporting on 544 patients (287 treated with DES and 257 treated with BMS). Data are presented as the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and the number-needed-to-treat (NNT). RESULTS: Primary patency, freedom from target lesion revascularization, and clinical improvement at 1 year were significantly higher in the DES recipients compared to patients treated with BMS (OR 4.511, 95% CI 2.897 to 7.024, p<0.001, NNT 3.5; OR 3.238, 95% CI 2.019 to 5.192, p<0.001, NNT 6.0; and OR 1.792, 95% CI 1.039 to 3.090, p=0.036, NNT 7.3, respectively). No significant differences in limb salvage and overall survival at 1 year were identified between the groups (OR 2.008, 95% CI 0.722 to 5.585, p=0.181; OR 1.262, 95% CI 0.605 to 2.634, p=0.535, respectively). Sensitivity analyses investigating the potential effects of study design and type of DES on the combined outcome estimates validated the results. CONCLUSION: Our analysis has demonstrated superior short-term results with DES compared with BMS, expressed by increased patency and freedom from target lesion revascularization. The influence of this finding on clinical surrogate endpoints, such as limb salvage, remains unknown.