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.
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 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Scaling behaviors of deep learning and linear algorithms for the prediction of stroke severity 91%
- The PREVENT Dementia programme: Baseline demographic, lifestyle, imaging and cognitive data from a midlife cohort study investigating risk factors for dementia 89%
- Anterior connectivity critical for recovery of connected speech after stroke 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- The relevance of rich club regions for functional outcome post-stroke is enhanced in women 90%
- Comparison of approaches to control for intracranial volume in research on the association of brain volumes with cognitive outcomes 90%
- Frontoparietal structural network disconnections correlate with outcome after a severe stroke 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Intravenous Thrombolysis for Acute Central Retinal Artery Occlusion: Protocol For a Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials 91%
- Confounding adjustment performance of ordinal analysis methods in stroke studies 91%
- Laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection triggers for acute myocardial infarction and stroke: systematic review protocol 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Longitudinal trajectories of global and domain-specific cognition after stroke using the Oxford Cognitive Screen 92%
- Effect of Time to Thrombolysis on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke Treated with Tenecteplase Compared to Alteplase: Analysis from the AcT Randomized Controlled Trial 91%
- Safety Outcomes of Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Combined Thrombectomy and Intravenous Thrombolysis in Tandem Lesions 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.