The European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines for carotid intervention: an updated independent assessment and literature review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Many medical societies now recommend carotid stenting as an alternative to endarterectomy which raises the question of whether the ESVS guidelines are still valid. This review addresses the validity of the ESVS guidelines that refer to carotid stenting based on the evidence available today. METHODS We conducted a review and meta-analysis based on the original ESVS guidelines paper and articles published over the past 2 years. RESULTS For symptomatic patients, surgery remains the best option, since stenting is associated with a 61% relative risk increase of periprocedural stroke or death compared to endarterectomy. However, centres of excellence in carotid stenting may achieve comparable results. In asymptomatic patients, there is still no good evidence for any intervention because the stroke risk from an asymptomatic stenosis is very low, especially with the best modern medical treatment. CREST and CAVATAS have verified that mid-term stroke prevention after successful stenting is similar to endarterectomy. EVA-3S, SPACE, ICSS and CREST have provided additional evidence regarding the role of age in choosing therapeutic modality. The role of the cerebral protection devices is challenged by the imaging findings of small randomised trials but supported by large systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS The ESVS guidelines that refer to carotid stenting not only remain valid but also have been further strengthened by the latest available clinical data. An update of these guidelines including all of the recent evidence is needed to provide an objective and up-to-date interpretation of the data.