Back

Cognitive Outcomes After Stenting and Endarterectomy: A Systematic-Review and Meta-Analysis

Ertl, W. J. P.; Ward, J.; Twomey, Z. A.; Call-Orellana, F.; Verma, U.; Jen, S. S.; Shakir, H. J.

2026-05-10 surgery
10.64898/2026.05.04.26351899 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCarotid artery stenosis may contribute to cognitive impairment through chronic hypoperfusion and subclinical ischemic injury. Although carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) reduce stroke risk, their cognitive effects remain unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate cognitive outcomes after these interventions. MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to November 2025. Eligible studies reported cognitive outcomes after CEA or CAS, either alone or in direct comparison. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) outcomes. Single-arm studies were analyzed using standardized mean change, and head-to-head studies using mean difference. Outcomes were stratified by intervention type and follow-up interval (0-6 months and >6 months). Domain-specific cognitive outcomes were summarized qualitatively. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB-2, ROBINS-I, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. ResultsSixty-eight studies including 4,659 patients met inclusion criteria; 27 contributed to meta-analysis and 41 to qualitative synthesis. MMSE showed no significant early change after either intervention, while CAS showed significant improvement at >6 months. MoCA improved significantly after both CEA and CAS at early and late follow-up, although heterogeneity was high. Head-to-head analyses found no significant difference between CEA and CAS for MMSE or MoCA, but these comparisons were limited by small sample sizes. Domain-specific outcomes were mostly stable, with improvements most often reported in memory, attention, executive function, and processing speed. ConclusionsCarotid revascularization may be associated with improved cognitive outcomes, particularly on MoCA, but results are heterogeneous and largely observational. Comparative evidence does not show a clear cognitive advantage of CEA or CAS. Future studies should use standardized cognitive testing and adequately powered direct comparisons.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
17.7%
2
Atherosclerosis
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.6%
3
Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.5%
5
Stroke
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.9%
6
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.0%
8
Neurobiology of Disease
134 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
9
BMC Neurology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
10
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.1%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.8%
12
Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
13
Alzheimer's & Dementia
143 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
14
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.9%
15
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
17
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
18
European Journal of Neurology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
19
Brain and Behavior
37 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.2%
20
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
21
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
22
Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism
43 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
23
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
24
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
25
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
26
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 27%
0.7%
27
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
28
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%