NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Screening for Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis in the General Population: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Evidence Synthesis, No. 199
Investigators: Janelle M. Guirguis-Blake, MD, Elizabeth M. Webber, MS, and Erin L. Coppola, MPH.
Structured Abstract
Objective:
To perform a targeted systematic review of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in the general population to support the update of the USPSTF’s 2014 D recommendation for this topic.
Data Sources:
We conducted a literature search of MEDLINE, PubMed Publisher-Supplied Records, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from January 1, 2014, to February 14, 2020. In addition, we conducted ongoing surveillance of relevant literature through November 20, 2020.
Study Selection:
We screened 2,374 abstracts and 144 full-text articles against a priori inclusion criteria. Retrospective analyses of vascular surgical registries were limited to data collected in the United States.
Data Analysis:
Working independently, two investigators critically appraised each article that met inclusion criteria using design-specific criteria. We abstracted and narratively synthesized data from included studies. The results discussed in this report are limited to studies published since the previous review to support the 2014 recommendation.
Results:
No eligible studies were identified that directly examined the benefits or harms of screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Since the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic, two limited, fair-quality, prematurely terminated trials reported mixed results for the comparative effectiveness of carotid revascularization (carotid endarterectomy [CEA] or carotid artery stenting [CAS]) plus best medical treatment (BMT) compared with BMT alone. The SPACE-2 trial (N=316 reported no difference in composite outcome of stroke or death (30 days) or ipsilateral ischemic stroke (1 year) after CEA (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.82 [95% CI, 0.33 to 24.07]) or CAS (unadjusted HR 3.50 [95% CI, 0.42, 29.11]) compared with BMT in the 1-year interim publication. The smaller AMTEC trial (N=55) reported a statistically significantly lower composite risk of nonfatal ipsilateral stroke or death among the carotid endarterectomy (CEA) arm at 3.3 median years of followup (calculated unadjusted HR 0.20 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.65]). Since the previous report, two fair-quality trials, two national datasets, and three surgical registries met our inclusion criteria reporting harms associated with CEA (N=1,903,761) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) (N=332,103). Overall, the rates of most postoperative adverse events were highest among analyses of national databases (Medicare data and National Inpatient Sample [NIS]), with lower rates reported in trials and surgical registries. Within the national databases and surgical registries, rates of 30-day postoperative stroke or death following CEA ranged from as low as 1.4 percent in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) to as high as 3.5 percent in the Medicare database. Thirty-day postoperative mortality ranged from 0.5 percent in the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) to as high as 1.1 percent in the Medicare database for CEA. Thirty-day postoperative stroke rates following CEA ranged from 0.5 percent in the VSGNE to 1.5 percent in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP). For the CAS procedure, 30-day stroke or death ranged from 2.6 percent in the VQI to 5.1 percent in Medicare. Thirty-day postoperative mortality after CAS ranged from 1.1 percent in the VQI to 3.1 percent in the Medicare database. Thirty-day postoperative stroke rates following CAS were only reported in the VQI at 1.8 percent. Rates of postoperative harms within the trials were generally underpowered to detect outcomes such as postoperative mortality. Within the SPACE-2 trial, the composite of 30-day postoperative stroke or death was reported at 2.5 percent following both CAS and CEA. Perioperative stroke was reported in one patient (3.2%) following CEA in the AMTEC trial. The other most common harms reported within trials included hematoma, facial nerve lesion, and contrast agent incompatibility.
Limitations:
We identified no trials of screening versus no screening in unselected general populations or examining direct screening harms. There were few new trials, all with methodologic concerns, examining the important question of the comparative effectiveness and harms of revascularization plus best medical treatment compared with best medical treatment alone. Selection bias and measurement bias presented serious validity concerns for complication rates reported in the administrative databases and surgical registries. The procedural complication rates of patients categorized as “asymptomatic” in the harms studies may not be generalizable to the rates that may be expected in a population of screen-detected patients (who would be expected to have lower complication rates compared with populations with any neurologic symptoms or remote history of TIA or stroke) or procedures performed outside of trials by less-selected operators (who may be expected to have higher complication rates compared with highly selected operators at high volume centers).
Conclusions:
There are no population-based screening trials addressing the benefits and harms of screening for carotid artery stenosis. Limited new evidence has emerged to determine the benefits of carotid revascularization over contemporary best medical management in asymptomatic patients. The ongoing CREST-2 and ECST-2 trials will be the largest trials to address this issue. Large national administrative databases and surgery registries suggest that postoperative 30-day stroke/death rates vary widely—1.4 to 3.5 percent for CEA and 2.6 to 5.1 percent for CAS—suggesting that there may be a wide variation in complication rates likely attributable to patient and operator selection.
Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Chapter 1. Introduction
- Chapter 2. Methods
- Chapter 3. Results
- Literature Search
- KQ1. Is There Direct Evidence That Screening Asymptomatic Adults for Carotid Artery Stenosis With Duplex Ultrasonography Improves Health Outcomes?
- KQ2. What Are the Harms Associated With Screening or Confirmatory Testing for Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis?
- KQ3. For Asymptomatic Persons With Carotid Artery Stenosis, Does Revascularization Provide Incremental Benefit Beyond Current Medical Treatment?
- KQ4. What Are the Harms Associated With Revascularization of Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis?
- Chapter 4. Discussion
- References
- Appendixes
Suggested citation:
Guirguis-Blake JM, Webber EM, Coppola EL. Screening for Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis in the General Population: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 199. AHRQ Publication No. 20-05268-EF-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2021.
This report is based on research conducted by the Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA-290-2015-00007-I, Task Order 6). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The information in this report is intended to help healthcare decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of healthcare services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information (i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients).
This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Review Behavioral and Pharmacotherapy Weight Loss Interventions to Prevent Obesity-Related Morbidity and Mortality in Adults: An Updated Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2018]Review Behavioral and Pharmacotherapy Weight Loss Interventions to Prevent Obesity-Related Morbidity and Mortality in Adults: An Updated Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceLeBlanc EL, Patnode CD, Webber EM, Redmond N, Rushkin M, O’Connor EA. 2018 Sep
- Review Primary Care Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2019]Review Primary Care Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceGuirguis-Blake JM, Beil TL, Senger CA, Coppola EL. 2019 Dec
- Review Lipid Screening in Childhood and Adolescence for Detection of Familial Hypercholesterolemia: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2016]Review Lipid Screening in Childhood and Adolescence for Detection of Familial Hypercholesterolemia: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceLozano P, Henrikson NB, Dunn J, Morrison CC, Nguyen M, Blasi PR, Anderson ML, Whitlock E. 2016 Aug
- Review Screening for Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2014]Review Screening for Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceJonas DE, Feltner C, Amick HR, Sheridan S, Zheng ZJ, Watford DJ, Carter JL, Rowe CJ, Harris R. 2014 Jul
- Review Screening for Colorectal Cancer: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2021]Review Screening for Colorectal Cancer: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceLin JS, Perdue LA, Henrikson NB, Bean SI, Blasi PR. 2021 May
- Screening for Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis in the General Population: An...Screening for Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis in the General Population: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...