You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Review
Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting for carotid stenosis: a Cochrane review
  1. Jörg Ederle,
  2. Roland L Featherstone,
  3. Martin M Brown
  1. Stroke Research Group, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor M M Brown, Box 6, The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK; m.brown{at}ion.ucl.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2008.144956

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    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.

    Background

    Carotid endarterectomy remains the treatment of choice for carotid stenosis. In recent years, endovascular treatment has become more readily available. However, randomised trials have so far failed to show equivalence of endovascular treatment. The aim of this review was therefore to analyse the combined available data from randomised clinical trials.

    Methods

    Search of the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched 14 March 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2007), MEDLINE (1950–March 2007), EMBASE (1980–March 2007) and Science Citation Index (1945–March 2007) identified randomised trials of endovascular treatment (angioplasty and/or stenting) compared with endarterectomy (surgery) or medical therapy for carotid artery stenosis. One review author independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Search results were validated by a second review author. Outcome events after randomisation …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding The Stroke Association UK, Department of Health, Reta Lila Weston Trust for Medical Research UK, Medical Research Council UK. This work was undertaken at University College London NHS Foundation Trust and University College London, who received a proportion of funding from the Department of Health's NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme.

    • Competing interests The review authors were involved in the organisation and analysis of patients in two completed trials and one ongoing trial (ICSS) included in the original systematic review.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.