Suppr超能文献

颈动脉内膜切除术的常规或选择性颈动脉分流术(以及选择性分流术中的不同监测方法)。

Routine or selective carotid artery shunting for carotid endarterectomy (and different methods of monitoring in selective shunting).

作者信息

Counsell C, Salinas R, Naylor R, Warlow C

机构信息

Neurosciences Trials Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road, Edinburgh, UK, EH4 2XU.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2):CD000190. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000190.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Temporary interruption of blood flow during carotid endarterectomy can be avoided by using a shunt across the clamped section of the carotid artery. This may improve outcome.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effect of routine versus selective shunting during carotid endarterectomy, and to assess the best method for selecting patients for shunting.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, Medline (1966 to 1994), Embase (1980 to 1995) and Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings (1980 to 1994). We handsearched Annals of Surgery (1981 to 1995), British Journal of Surgery (1985 to 1995), European Journal of Vascular Surgery (1988 to 1995) and World Journal of Surgery (1978 to 1995).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of routine shunting compared with no shunting, and trials that compared different shunting policies in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria. The data were extracted by one reviewer and double-checked. Trial quality was assessed.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials were included. Two trials involving 590 patients compared routine shunting with no shunting. The other trial involving 131 patients compared shunting with a combination of electroencephalographic and carotid pressure measurement, with shunting by carotid pressure measurement alone. Allocation was adequately concealed in one trial, and one trial was quasi-randomised. Analysis was by intention-to-treat where possible. For routine versus no shunting, there was no significant difference in the rate of all stroke, ipsilateral stroke or death up to 30 days after surgery, although data were limited. There was no significant difference between the risk of ipsilateral stroke in patients selected for shunting with the combination of electroencephalographic and carotid pressure assessment compared to pressure assessment alone, although again the data were limited.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The data presently available are too limited to either support or refute the use of routine or selective shunting in carotid endarterectomy. Large scale randomized trials using no shunting as the control group are required. No one method of monitoring in selective shunting has been shown to produce better outcomes.

摘要

背景

在颈动脉内膜切除术期间,通过在颈动脉夹闭段使用分流管可避免血流的暂时中断。这可能会改善手术效果。

目的

本综述的目的是评估颈动脉内膜切除术期间常规分流与选择性分流的效果,并评估选择分流患者的最佳方法。

检索策略

我们检索了Cochrane卒中组试验注册库、Medline(1966年至1994年)、Embase(1980年至1995年)以及《科技会议录索引》(1980年至1994年)。我们手工检索了《外科学年鉴》(1981年至1995年)、《英国外科学杂志》(1985年至1995年)、《欧洲血管外科学杂志》(1988年至1995年)和《世界外科学杂志》(1978年至1995年)。

选择标准

常规分流与无分流的随机和半随机试验,以及比较颈动脉内膜切除术患者不同分流策略的试验。

数据收集与分析

两名评价者独立应用纳入标准。数据由一名评价者提取并进行二次核对。评估试验质量。

主要结果

纳入三项试验。两项试验涉及590例患者,比较了常规分流与无分流的情况。另一项试验涉及131例患者,比较了脑电图和颈动脉压力测量联合分流与单纯颈动脉压力测量分流的情况。一项试验中分配方案得到了充分隐藏,一项试验为半随机试验。尽可能采用意向性分析。对于常规分流与无分流,术后30天内全卒中、同侧卒中和死亡发生率无显著差异,尽管数据有限。与单纯压力评估相比,脑电图和颈动脉压力评估联合选择分流的患者同侧卒中风险无显著差异,尽管数据同样有限。

评价者结论

目前可得的数据过于有限,无法支持或反驳在颈动脉内膜切除术中使用常规或选择性分流。需要进行以无分流作为对照组的大规模随机试验。在选择性分流中,尚未证明哪种监测方法能产生更好的结果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验