Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Impact of Carotid Artery Stenosis on Quality of Life: A Systematic Review

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to identify themes that determine health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with carotid artery stenosis and identify the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that best cover the identified themes.

Methods

A systematic review of the main six databases from inception to September 2018 was undertaken to identify primary qualitative studies reporting on the HRQoL of patients with carotid artery stenosis. The quality of studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) criteria. Findings from the included studies were analysed using framework analysis methodology. The identified themes were mapped against the items/domains from the PROMs used previously in patients with carotid artery stenosis.

Results

The systematic review identified four papers that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The included papers reported the views of 62 patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis; 24 of the patients were awaiting assessment for intervention, 26 had carotid endarterectomy, and 12 were turned down for intervention and received best medical therapy. The overall quality of the included studies was good based on CASP criteria. Framework analysis identified 16 themes that were divided into five main domains: anxiety, impact on personal roles and activities, effect on independence, psychological impact, and symptoms. The best-fit generic and disease-specific PROMs were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form (SF-36®) and the Carotid Stenosis Specific Outcome Measure (CSSOM), respectively. None of the PROMs covered all the themes identified in the qualitative systematic review.

Conclusion

The findings from the review identified the important themes that affect patients with carotid stenosis disease. The current generic and disease-specific PROMs do not cover all themes that impact the HRQoL of patients suffering with this disease. The proposed themes can be used to develop a new disease-specific PROM to measure HRQoL.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  1. Luengo-Fernandez R, Gray AM, Bull L, Welch S, Cuthbertson F, Rothwell PM. Quality of life after TIA and stroke: ten-year results of the Oxford Vascular Study. Neurology. 2013;81(18):1588–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. British Health Foundation, Heart Matters. Focus on: stroke and carotid artery disease. 2016. Available at: https://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-matters-magazine/medical/stroke-and-carotid-artery-disease. Accessed 30 Apr 2018.

  3. Barnett HJ, Taylor DW, Eliasziw M, Fox AJ, Ferguson GG, Haynes RB, et al. Benefit of carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic moderate or severe stenosis. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(20):1415–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. European Carotid Surgery Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST). Lancet. 1998;351(9113):1379–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Halliday A, Mansfield A, Marro J, Peto C, Peto R, Potter J, et al. Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;363(9420):1491–502.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Halliday A, Harrison M, Hayter E, Kong X, Mansfield A, Marro J, et al. 10-year stroke prevention after successful carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic stenosis (ACST-1): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;376:1074–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Ederle J, Dobson J, Featherstone RL, Bonati LH, Worp HB, Borst GJ, et al. Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:985–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yadav JS, Wholey MH, Kuntz RE, Fayad P, Katzen BT, Mishkel GJ, et al. Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(15):1493–501.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brott TG, Hobson RW, Howard G, Roubin GS, Clark WM, Brooks W, et al. Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(1):11–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bonati LH, Dobson J, Algra A, Branchereau A, Chatellier G, Fraedrich G, et al. Short-term outcome after stenting versus endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis: a preplanned meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet. 2010;376(9746):1062–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stolker JM, Mahoney EM, Safley DM, Pomposelli FB, Yadav JS, Cohen DJ. Health-related quality of life following carotid stenting versus endarterectomy: results from the SAPPHIRE (Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at HIgh Risk for Endarterectomy) trial. JACC Cardiovascular interventions. 2010;3:515–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chabowski M, Grzebien A, Ziomek A, Dorobisz K, Lesniak M, Janczak D. Quality of life after carotid endarterectomy—a review of the literature. Acta Neurol Belg. 2017;117(4):829–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Hsu LC, Chang FC, Teng MMH, Chern CM, Wong WJ. Impact of carotid stenting in dizzy patients with carotid stenosis. J Chin Med Assoc. 2014;77(8):403–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen DJS. Health-related quality of life after carotid stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: results from CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(15):1557–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;346:f167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Department of Health. Liberating the NHS: transparency in outcomes—a framework for the NHS. 2010. http://www.bad.org.uk/shared/get-file.ashx?itemtype=document&id=1280. Accessed 30 Apr 2018.

  17. Essat M, Aber A, Phillips P, Poku E, Woods HB, Howard A, Palfreyman S, Kaltenthaler E, Jones G, Michaels J. Patient-reported outcome measures in carotid artery revascularization: systematic review and psychometric analysis. Ann Vasc Surg. 2018;50:275–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Duncan R, Booth A, Woods HB, Essat M, Phillips P, Poku, E, Kaltenthaler E, Jones G, Michaels J. Understanding the experience and impact of living with a vascular condition from the patients’ perspective: qualitative evidence synthesis protocol. HEDS discussion paper. 2016. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.552397!/file/DP_16_05.pdf. Accessed 08 June 2017.

  19. Grant MJ (2004) How does your searching grow? A survey of search preferences and the use of optimal search strategies in the identification of qualitative research. Health information and libraries journal. Health Info Libr J. 2004;21(1):21–32.

  20. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. 10 questions to help you make sense of qualitative research: CASP qualitative check list. 2006;1–6. http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_951541699e9edc71ce66c9bac4734c69.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2018.

  21. Carroll C, Booth A. Quality assessment of qualitative evidence for systematic review and synthesis: is it meaningful, and if so, how should it be performed? Res Synth Methods. 2015;6(2):149–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman G, Burgess A, editors. Analysing qualitative data. 4th ed. London: Routledge; 2015. p. 169–91.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Farmer T, Robinson K, Elliott SJ, Eyles J. Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qual Health Res. 2006;16:377–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ. 2010;341:c4587.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gibson J. Use of qualitative research to analyze patient and clinician decision making in carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Nurs. 2002;20(2):60–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hallin A, Bergqvist D, Fugl-Meyer K, Holmberg L. Areas of concern, quality of life and life satisfaction in patients with peripheral vascular disease. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2002;24(3):255–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Gibson J, Watkins C. People’s experiences of the impact of transient ischaemic attack and its consequences: qualitative study. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68(8):1707–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gibson J, Watkins C. The use of formal and informal knowledge sources in patients’ treatment decisions in secondary stroke prevention: qualitative study. Health Expect. 2013;16(3):e13–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ivanova P, Kikule I, Zvirgzdins V, et al. Quality of life assessment for asymptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis patients before and after carotid endarterectomy. Gazz Med Ital Arch Sci Med. 2015;174:33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bowling A. Measuring health: a review of quality of life measurement scales. 4th ed. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK

    Ahmed Aber, Aoife Howard, Helen Buckley Woods, Georgina Jones & Jonathan Michaels

  2. Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, LS1 9HE, UK

    Georgina Jones

Authors
  1. Ahmed Aber
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aoife Howard
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helen Buckley Woods
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Georgina Jones
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jonathan Michaels
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Ahmed Aber contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, and critical revision. Aoife Howard contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data and drafting of the manuscript. Helen Buckley Woods performed the searches for the systematic review and helped in drafting of the manuscript. Georgina Jones contributed to the study conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafting of the manuscript. Jonathan Michaels contributed to the study conception and critical revision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed Aber.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under the Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (RP-PG-1210-12009). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Conflict of interest

Ahmed Aber, Aoife Howard, Helen Buckley Woods, Georgina Jones, and Jonathan Michaels have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this article.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aber, A., Howard, A., Woods, H.B. et al. Impact of Carotid Artery Stenosis on Quality of Life: A Systematic Review. Patient 12, 213–222 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0337-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0337-1