Background Emergent carotid artery stenting (eCAS) is performed during mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke due to tandem occlusion. However, the optimal management strategy in this setting is still unclear.
Objective To carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the safety and efficacy of eCAS in patients with tandem occlusion.
Methods Systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched from January 1, 2004 to March 7, 2022 for studies evaluating eCAS and no-stenting approach in patients with stroke with tandem occlusion. Primary endpoint was the 90-day modified Rankin Scale score 0–2; secondary outcomes were (1) symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), (2) recurrent stroke, (3) successful recanalization (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score 2b–3), (4) embolization in new territories, and (5) restenosis rate. Meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effects modeling.
Results Forty-six studies reached synthesis. eCAS was associated with higher good functional outcome compared with the no-stenting approach (OR=1.52, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.95), despite a significantly increased risk of sICH (OR=1.97, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.15), and higher successful recanalization rate (OR=1.91, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.85). Restenosis rate was lower in the eCAS group than in the no-stenting group (2% vs 9%, p=0.001). Recanalization rate was higher in retrograde than antegrade eCAS (OR=0.51, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.93). Intraprocedural antiplatelets during eCAS were associated with higher rate of good functional outcome (60% vs 46%, p=0.016) and lower rate of sICH (7% vs 11%; p=0.08) compared with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.
Conclusions In observational studies, eCAS seems to be associated with higher good functional outcome than no-stenting in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to tandem occlusion, despite the higher risk of sICH. Dedicated trials are needed to confirm these results.
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Not applicable.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
AZ, DAdS and SP are joint senior authors.
Contributors Conception and design of the work: FD. Data acquisition: FD and GT. Data analysis and interpretation: FD, MR, DAdS. Drafting the work: FD, MR, AR, CM, DGR, FDS, PM. Critical revision: DAdS, AZ, and SP. Final approval: all authors.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.