Pharmacological interventions for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenosis is narrowing of the carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is when this narrowing occurs in people without a history or symptoms of this disease. It is caused by atherosclerosis; that is, the build-up of fats, cholesterol, and other substances in and on the artery walls. Atherosclerosis is more likely to occur in people with several risk factors, such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, and smoking. As this damage can develop without symptoms, the first symptom can be a fatal or disabling stroke, known as ischaemic stroke. Carotid stenosis leading to ischaemic stroke is most common in men older than 70 years. Ischaemic stroke is a worldwide public health problem. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in preventing neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, death, major bleeding, and other outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and three trials registers from their inception to 9 August 2022. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status and language, comparing a pharmacological intervention to placebo, no treatment, or another pharmacological intervention for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials. A third author resolved disagreements when necessary. We assessed the evidence certainty for key outcomes using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 RCTs with 11,571 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from only 22 studies with 6887 participants. The mean follow-up period was 2.5 years. None of the 34 included studies assessed neurological impairment and quality of life. Antiplatelet agent (acetylsalicylic acid) versus placebo Acetylsalicylic acid (1 study, 372 participants) may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 2.47), stroke-related mortality (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.59), progression of carotid stenosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71), and adverse events (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.59), compared to placebo (all low-certainty evidence). The effect of acetylsalicylic acid on major bleeding is very uncertain (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.53; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure neurological impairment or quality of life. Antihypertensive agents (metoprolol and chlorthalidone) versus placebo The antihypertensive agent, metoprolol, may result in no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to1.16; 1 study, 793 participants) and stroke-related mortality (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.94; 1 study, 793 participants) compared to placebo (both low-certainty evidence). However, chlorthalidone may slow the progression of carotid stenosis (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.91; 1 study, 129 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. Neither study measured neurological impairment, major bleeding, adverse events, or quality of life. Anticoagulant agent (warfarin) versus placebo The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of warfarin (1 study, 919 participants) on major bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence), but it may reduce adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. The study did not measure neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, stroke-related mortality, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life. Lipid-lowering agents (atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin) versus placebo or no treatment Lipid-lowering agents may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (atorvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.53; 5 studies, 2235 participants) stroke-related mortality (lovastatin and pravastatin; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.29; 2 studies, 1366 participants), and adverse events (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to1.10; 7 studies, 3726 participants) compared to placebo or no treatment (all low-certainty evidence). The studies did not measure neurological impairment, major bleeding, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although there is no high-certainty evidence to support pharmacological intervention, this does not mean that pharmacological treatments are ineffective in preventing ischaemic cerebral events, morbidity, and mortality. High-quality RCTs are needed to better inform the best medical treatment that may reduce the burden of carotid stenosis. In the interim, clinicians will have to use other sources of information.

Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment.

BACKGROUND: The use of mechanical thrombectomy to restore intracranial blood flow after proximal large artery occlusion by a thrombus has increased over time and led to better outcomes than intravenous thrombolytic therapy alone. Currently, the type of anaesthetic technique during mechanical thrombectomy is under debate as having a relevant impact on neurological outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different types of anaesthesia for endovascular interventions in people with acute ischaemic stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Specialised Register of Trials on 5 July 2022, and CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and seven other databases on 21 March 2022. We performed searches of reference lists of included trials, grey literature sources, and other systematic reviews.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials with a parallel design that compared general anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia, conscious sedation anaesthesia, or monitored care anaesthesia for mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischaemic stroke. We also included studies reported as full-text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, studies without a comparator group, and studies with a retrospective design. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The outcomes were assessed at different time periods, ranging from the onset of the stroke symptoms to 90 days after the start of the intervention. The main outcomes were functional outcome, neurological impairment, stroke-related mortality, all intracranial haemorrhage, target artery revascularisation status, time to revascularisation, adverse events, and quality of life. All included studies reported data for early (up to 30 days) and long-term (above 30 days) time points. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials with 982 participants, which investigated the type of anaesthesia for endovascular treatment in large vessel occlusion in the intracranial circulation. The outcomes were assessed at different time periods, ranging from the onset of stroke symptoms to 90 days after the procedure. Therefore, all included studies reported data for early (up to 30 days) and long-term (above 30 up to 90 days) time points. General anaesthesia versus non-general anaesthesia(early) We are uncertain about the effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcomes compared to non-general anaesthesia (mean difference (MD) 0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.31 to 0.31; P = 1.0; 1 study, 90 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in time to revascularisation from groin puncture until the arterial reperfusion (MD 2.91 minutes, 95% CI -5.11 to 10.92; P = 0.48; I² = 48%; 5 studies, 498 participants; very low-certainty evidence). General anaesthesia may lead to no difference in neurological impairment up to 48 hours after the procedure (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.18 to 0.59; P = 0.52; I² = 0%; 7 studies, 982 participants; low-certainty evidence), and in stroke-related mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.84; P = 0.94; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 330 participants; low-certainty evidence), all intracranial haemorrhages (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.29; P = 0.63; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 693 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to non-general anaesthesia. General anaesthesia may improve adverse events (haemodynamic instability) compared to non-general anaesthesia (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.79; P = 0.02; I² = 71%; 2 studies, 229 participants; low-certainty evidence). General anaesthesia improves target artery revascularisation compared to non-general anaesthesia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.18; P = 0.02; I² = 29%; 7 studies, 982 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no available data for quality of life. General anaesthesia versus non-general anaesthesia (long-term) There is no difference in general anaesthesia compared to non-general anaesthesia for dichotomous and continuous functional outcomes (dichotomous: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.58; P = 0.16; I² = 29%; 4 studies, 625 participants; low-certainty evidence; continuous: MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.06; P = 0.17; I² = 0%; 7 studies, 978 participants; low-certainty evidence). General anaesthesia showed no changes in stroke-related mortality compared to non-general anaesthesia (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.22; P = 0.44; I² = 12%; 6 studies, 843 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no available data for neurological impairment, all intracranial haemorrhages, target artery revascularisation status, time to revascularisation from groin puncture until the arterial reperfusion, adverse events (haemodynamic instability), or quality of life. Ongoing studies We identified eight ongoing studies. Five studies compared general anaesthesia versus conscious sedation anaesthesia, one study compared general anaesthesia versus conscious sedation anaesthesia plus local anaesthesia, and two studies compared general anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia. Of these studies, seven plan to report data on functional outcomes using the modified Rankin Scale, five studies on neurological impairment, six studies on stroke-related mortality, two studies on all intracranial haemorrhage, five studies on target artery revascularisation status, four studies on time to revascularisation, and four studies on adverse events. One ongoing study plans to report data on quality of life. One study did not plan to report any outcome of interest for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In early outcomes, general anaesthesia improves target artery revascularisation compared to non-general anaesthesia with moderate-certainty evidence. General anaesthesia may improve adverse events (haemodynamic instability) compared to non-general anaesthesia with low-certainty evidence. We found no evidence of a difference in neurological impairment, stroke-related mortality, all intracranial haemorrhage and haemodynamic instability adverse events between groups with low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain whether general anaesthesia improves functional outcomes and time to revascularisation because the certainty of the evidence is very low. However, regarding long-term outcomes, general anaesthesia makes no difference to functional outcomes compared to non-general anaesthesia with low-certainty evidence. General anaesthesia did not change stroke-related mortality when compared to non-general anaesthesia with low-certainty evidence. There were no reported data for other outcomes. In view of the limited evidence of effect, more randomised controlled trials with a large number of participants and good protocol design with a low risk of bias should be performed to reduce our uncertainty and to aid decision-making in the choice of anaesthesia.