ABSTRACT NUMBER: ESOC2026A943 MEDICAL MANAGEMENT AND REVASCULARIZATION FOR ASYMPTOMATIC CAROTID STENOSIS: A META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

Abstract Background and aims Historical trials (ACAS/ACST) supported revascularization for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, but contemporary medical management with statins, antithrombotics, and blood pressure control may reduce stroke risk. This meta-analysis compares medical management versus revascularization (carotid endarterectomy [CEA] or stenting [CAS]) in current practice. Methods We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases to obtain articles related to "Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis", "Medical Management" and "Revascularization" until December 5, 2025. The primary outcome was a composite of any stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) or death, assessed from randomization to periprocedural period, or ipsilateral ischemic stroke, assessed during the remaining follow-up. This study was registered in PROSPERO, CRD420251247217. Results Three RCTs (SPACE-2, ECST-2, CREST-2; 3,426 patients) were included. For the primary outcome, no significant difference existed between revascularization (CEA/CAS) and medical management: 4.76% (88/1,847) vs. 6.40% (101/1,579); RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.47–1.74, P=0.77), though heterogeneity was high (I2=74%). All-cause mortality also did not differ: 7.7% vs. 9.50%; RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.67–1.04, P=0.77). Subgroup analyses showed no benefit for CEA (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45–1.19) or CAS (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.23–2.27) over medical management alone. Conclusions The present meta-analysis demonstrates that, among patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the risk of stroke and mortality with contemporary medical management is comparable to that with revascularization (CEA or CAS). These findings validate current guideline recommendations, which emphasize stringent patient selection and prioritize the optimization of medical therapy prior to any revascularization procedure. Conflict of interest All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Stroke Journal
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/esj/aakag023.486
Primary Topic
Cerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

ABSTRACT NUMBER: ESOC2026A943 MEDICAL MANAGEMENT AND REVASCULARIZATION FOR ASYMPTOMATIC CAROTID STENOSIS: A META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

Ya Gao, J W Liu, Pengfei Yang, Lei Zhang et al.
European Stroke Journal
Cerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
article

ABSTRACT NUMBER: ESOC2026A943 MEDICAL MANAGEMENT AND REVASCULARIZATION FOR ASYMPTOMATIC CAROTID STENOSIS: A META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

Ya Gao, J W Liu, Pengfei Yang, Lei Zhang, Yongwei Zhang, Lijun Wang
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background and aims Historical trials (ACAS/ACST) supported revascularization for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, but contemporary medical management with statins, antithrombotics, and blood pressure control may reduce stroke risk. This meta-analysis compares medical management versus revascularization (carotid endarterectomy [CEA] or stenting [CAS]) in current practice. Methods We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases to obtain articles related to "Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis", "Medical Management" and "Revascularization" until December 5, 2025. The primary outcome was a composite of any stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) or death, assessed from randomization to periprocedural period, or ipsilateral ischemic stroke, assessed during the remaining follow-up. This study was registered in PROSPERO, CRD420251247217. Results Three RCTs (SPACE-2, ECST-2, CREST-2; 3,426 patients) were included. For the primary outcome, no significant difference existed between revascularization (CEA/CAS) and medical management: 4.76% (88/1,847) vs. 6.40% (101/1,579); RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.47–1.74, P=0.77), though heterogeneity was high (I2=74%). All-cause mortality also did not differ: 7.7% vs. 9.50%; RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.67–1.04, P=0.77). Subgroup analyses showed no benefit for CEA (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45–1.19) or CAS (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.23–2.27) over medical management alone. Conclusions The present meta-analysis demonstrates that, among patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the risk of stroke and mortality with contemporary medical management is comparable to that with revascularization (CEA or CAS). These findings validate current guideline recommendations, which emphasize stringent patient selection and prioritize the optimization of medical therapy prior to any revascularization procedure. Conflict of interest All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

European Stroke JournalVol. 11(Supplement_1)
Second Military Medical University (CN), Changhai Hospital (CN)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Cerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.