Transcarotid Artery Revascularization for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Clinical Snapshot

Key Findings

• P Value: Not explicitly reported for individual comparisons

• Effect Size: TCAR vs CEA: stroke RR 1.25, death RR 0.94, MI RR 0.68; TCAR vs TF-CAS: stroke RR 0.60, death RR 0.55

• Primary Outcome: 30-day stroke, death, stroke or death, and myocardial infarction

• Nnt Or Sensitivity: TCAR appears superior to TF-CAS but not clearly superior to CEA for neurologic outcomes

• Confidence Interval: Most outcomes cross unity except TCAR vs TF-CAS showing significant benefit

Clinical Application

TCAR availability limited in Australia; requires specialized training and equipment Limited TCAR availability through public system; private sector access variable; RACGP guidelines emphasize medical management for asymptomatic stenosis Patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis suitable for revascularization

Abstract

Management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis remains controversial despite advances in contemporary best medical therapy. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been introduced as an alternative revascularization option alongside carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS). Evidence focused specifically on asymptomatic carotid disease, however, remains limited and is derived mainly from observational analyses of clinical databases, with only a small amount of single-center retrospective evidence. The present study therefore examined the available comparative evidence on TCAR for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of studies reporting outcomes of TCAR in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Eligible studies included asymptomatic cohorts or mixed populations with extractable asymptomatic subgroup data and reported outcomes after TCAR with comparison against CEA and/or TF-CAS. The primary pooled outcomes were stroke, death, stroke or death, and myocardial infarction at 30 days, together with the corresponding stroke, death, and stroke or death outcomes at approximately 1 year. For TCAR versus CEA, no significant between-group differences were identified in the pooled 30-day risks of stroke (risk ratio (RR), 1.25; 95% CI, 0.98-1.59; I²=82%), death (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.64-1.38; I²=57%), or stroke or death (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.95-1.26; I²=75%). In contrast, myocardial infarction within 30 days occurred less frequently after TCAR (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.96; I²=71%). At approximately 1 year, pooled estimates likewise showed no significant difference in stroke (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.70-2.29; I²=0%) or death (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.97-1.35; I²=0%), whereas the pooled estimate for stroke or death favored CEA (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.15-1.36; I²=31%). A different pattern emerged in the TCAR versus TF-CAS comparison. TCAR was associated with significantly lower pooled 30-day risks of stroke (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.48-0.73; I²=0%), death (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38-0.81; I²=20%), and stroke or death (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.52-0.70; I²=6%), while no significant difference was observed for 30-day myocardial infarction (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.65-1.29; I²=44%). At approximately 1 year, stroke remained comparable between the 2 groups (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.46-1.23; I²=26%), whereas death (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.20; I²=66%) and stroke or death (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.87; I²=45%) differed, with the pooled stroke-or-death estimate favoring TCAR. Current observational evidence suggests that TCAR compares favorably with TF-CAS in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. When compared with CEA, TCAR does not appear to provide a clear benefit in pooled perioperative neurologic outcomes, although myocardial infarction may occur less frequently after TCAR.

References

1. 1.Jiang, Z. C., Hu, Q. F., Huang, J. M., Wang, X. W., Lin, T., Gao, X. L., Cui, J. W., Zhao, J. L., Chen, D., & Li, S. P. (2026). Transcarotid artery revascularization for asymptomatic carotid stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Translational Stroke Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z