A meta-analysis of the effect of stent design on clinical and radiologic outcomes of carotid artery stenting

Evelien E. de Vries, Armelle J. A. Meershoek, Evert J. Vonken, Hester M. den Ruijter, Jos C. van den Berg, Gert J. de Borst, K. Bijuklic, J. Schofer, L. Bonati, M. Bosiers, J. Wauters, G. de Donato, E. Chisci, C. Setacci, D. Doig, R. L. Featherstone, J. Dobson, M. M. Brown, M. K. Eskandari, J. GiriI. Q. Grunwald, A. L. Kühn, D. K. Han, P. L. Faries, F. Hernandez-Fernandez, G. Parrilla, M. Hornung, H. Sievert, K. Kono, P. Latacz, J. Ledwoch, H. Mudra, G. Maleux, R. Nolz, T. Ohki, M. Piazza, P. Pieniazek, L. Tekieli, D. Radak, S. Tanaskovic, M. Rasiova, G. Simonte, B. Fiorucci, M. W. K. Tietke, G. Ventoruzzo

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

23 Citations (Scopus)


Objective: Procedural characteristics, including stent design, may influence the outcome of carotid artery stenting (CAS). A thorough comparison of the effect of stent design on outcome of CAS is thus warranted to allow for optimal evidence-based clinical decision making. This study sought to evaluate the effect of stent design on clinical and radiologic outcomes of CAS. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases in May 2018. Included were articles reporting on the occurrence of clinical short- and intermediate-term major adverse events (MAEs; any stroke or death) or radiologic adverse events (new ischemic lesions on postprocedural magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging [MR-DWI], restenosis, or stent fracture) in different stent designs used to treat carotid artery stenosis. Random effects models were used to calculate combined overall effect sizes. Metaregression was performed to identify the effect of specific stents on MAE rates. Results: From 2654 unique identified articles, two randomized, controlled trials and 66 cohort studies were eligible for analysis (including 46,728 procedures). Short-term clinical MAE rates were similar for patients treated with open cell vs closed cell or hybrid stents. Use of an Acculink stent was associated with a higher risk of short-term MAE compared with a Wallstent (risk ratio [RR], 1.51; P = .03), as was true for use of Precise stent vs Xact stent (RR, 1.55; P < .001). Intermediate-term clinical MAE rates were similar for open vs closed cell stents. Use of open cell stents predisposed to a 25% higher chance (RR, 1.25; P = .03) of developing postprocedural new ischemic lesions on MR-DWI. No differences were observed in the incidence of restenosis, stent fracture, or intraprocedural hemodynamic depression with respect to different stent design. Conclusions: Stent design is not associated with short- or intermediate-term clinical MAE rates in patients undergoing CAS. Furthermore, the division in open and closed cell stent design might conceal true differences in single stent efficacy. Nevertheless, open cell stenting resulted in a significantly higher number of subclinical postprocedural new ischemic lesions detected on MR-DWI compared with closed cell stenting. An individualized patient data meta-analysis, including future studies with prospective homogenous study design, is required to adequately correct for known risk factors and to provide definite conclusions with respect to carotid stent design for specific subgroups.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1952-1961.e1
JournalJournal of vascular surgery
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2019
Externally publishedYes

Cite this