Why the study?
Does recurrent stenosis increase the risk of stroke in patients after carotid endarterectomy?
Does recurrent stenosis increase the risk of stroke in patients after carotid endarterectomy?
Recurrent stenosis after carotid endarterectomy is associated with an increased risk of stroke (RR 1.88), with the highest incidence of restenosis occurring in the first few years, suggesting ultrasound follow-up may not be necessary after 4 years.
Supports early post-CEA surveillance for recurrent stenosis; extends observational evidence linking it to nearly doubled stroke risk.
BACKGROUND: The main goal of follow-up after carotid endarterectomy is to prevent new strokes caused by recurrent stenosis. To determine the most cost-effective follow-up schedule, it is necessary to know the incidence of recurrent stenosis and the risk of stroke it carries. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using standard meta-analytical techniques. RESULTS: Incidence of recurrent stenosis: The data were very heterogeneous. The risk of recurrent stenosis was 10% in the first year, 3% in the second, and 2% in the third. Long-term risk of recurrent stenosis is about 1% per year. Risk of stroke: The reported relative risks of stroke in patients with recurrent stenosis compared with patients without recurrent stenosis showed extreme heterogeneity and ranged from 10 to 0.10. The random effects summary estimator of relative risk was 1.88. CONCLUSIONS: The data were very heterogeneous, and much better data are needed to arrive at truly reliable estimates of these important parameters of follow-up. It is clear, though, that the risk of recurrent stenosis is highest in the first few years after carotid endarterectomy and very low in later years. By use of general decision-analytic arguments, it can be argued that, given the test characteristics of carotid ultrasound, a small number of tests can be done in the first few years and that testing for restenosis should not be done after 4 years.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Frericks et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: