Search

Introduction: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) through transradial access (TRA) is emerging as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy. However, the current evidence base is limited, mainly comprising single-center studies. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to assess the safety and effectiveness of TRA for CAS, providing evidence to support clinical decisions. Methods: We conducted searches on PUBMED, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases, including studies on TRA for CAS. Studies with fewer than 20 patients, non-primary outcomes, and non-full-text articles were excluded. Results: We analyzed 14 studies involving 1,166 patients who underwent CAS via TRA. Procedural success rate was high in 13 studies, with a 95% rate (95% CI; 92%–98%). Crossover to TFA access was observed in 12 studies at 6% (95% CI: 3%–9%). Transradial access failure was reported in four studies, with a rate of 0% (95% CI: 0%–0%). Cannulation failure resulted in a rate of 4% (95% CI: 2%–7%). Asymptomatic radial artery occlusion (ARAO) occurred at a rate of 2% based on eight studies (95% CI: 0%–5%). Forearm hematoma was reported in 10 studies, with an occurrence of 1% (95% CI: 0%–2%). Cerebral vascular attacks (CAV) within 30 days were assessed in 13 studies, indicating a 2% occurrence (95% CI: 1%–2%). Conclusion: The findings suggest that TRA for CAS yields promising outcomes with high success rates and low complication rates. Further research should focus on randomized controlled trials and long-term outcomes to validate and extend findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysm (uMCAA) has traditionally been treated with open surgical clipping (SC). Endovascular treatments (EVTs) were designed to reduce surgical risks in these cases. Nevertheless, despite its potential benefits, many surgeons favor SC for uMCAA. This updated meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes of SC and EVT for uMCAA., Methods: The authors searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases according to the Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included those with ≥ 4 patients with uMCAA reporting comparative data of SC and EVT. The endpoints were the complete occlusion rate (Raymond class I and II), good clinical outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score ≤ 2 or Glasgow Outcome Scale score ≥ 4), procedure-related complications (further divided into major and minor), and mortality. The authors pooled OR with 95% CI values with a random-effects model. I2 statistics were used to assess heterogeneity, and sensitivity analysis was conducted to address high heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plot analysis and the Egger's test., Results: The analysis included data from 10 studies. Regarding the complete occlusion assessment, the comparative analysis revealed OR 0.17 (95% CI 0.08-0.40, p < 0.01), favoring SC. In terms of achieving good clinical outcomes, OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.20-0.97, p < 0.05) was determined, favoring SC. No differences regarding total procedure-related complications, major complications, or mortality were identified. However, a higher likelihood of minor complications was identified for EVT, with OR 4.68 (95% CI 2.01-10.92, p < 0.01)., Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis identified a lower likelihood of complete occlusion at last follow-up and lower likelihood of good clinical outcomes in patients treated with EVT when compared with SC. Furthermore, a higher likelihood of minor complications was identified in patients who underwent EVT when compared with SC. The findings reinforce that, based on the currently available data, SC should be considered the primary approach for treating uMCAA. However, EVT is an evolving approach, and this study's findings represent a synthesis of observational studies. Randomized trials are warranted to elucidate which approach should be the mainstay for uMCAA and to identify the nuances that determine whether SC or EVT is more or less indicated for addressing uMCAA with consideration of the individuality of each patient and aneurysm.

Background and Objectives: Ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) is usually the primary choice for cerebrospinal fluid shunting for most neurosurgeons, while ventriculoatrial shunt (VAS) is a second-line procedure because of historical complications. Remarkably, there is no robust evidence claiming the superiority of VPS over VAS. Thus, we aimed to compare both procedures through a meta-analysis., Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, the authors systematically searched the literature for articles comparing VAS with VPS. The included articles had to detail one of the following outcomes: revisions, infections, shunt-related mortality, or complications. In addition, the cohort for each shunt model had to encompass more than 4 patients., Results: Of 1872 articles, 16 met our criteria, involving 4304 patients, with 1619 undergoing VAS and 2685 receiving VPS placement. Analysis of revision surgeries showed no significant difference between VAS and VPS (risk ratio [RR] = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.9-1.34; I2 = 84%, random effects). Regarding infections, the analysis also found no significant difference between the groups (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.36-1.25; I2 = 74%, random effects). There was no statistically significant disparity between both methods concerning shunt-related deaths (RR = 2.11, 95% CI: 0.68-6.60; I2 = 56%, random effects). Included studies after 2000 showed no VAS led to cardiopulmonary complications, and only 1 shunt-related death could be identified., Conclusion: Both methods show no significant differences in procedure revisions, infections, and shunt-related mortality. The literature is outdated, research in adults is lacking, and future randomized studies are crucial to understand the profile of VAS when comparing it with VPS. The final decision on which distal site for cerebrospinal shunting to use should be based on the patient's characteristics and the surgeon's expertise., (Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2023. All rights reserved.)