Chambers B R, You R X, Donnan G A
National Stroke Research Institute, Austin & Repatriation Medical Centre, Heidelberg West, Victoria, Australia, 3081.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2):CD001923. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001923.
Whilst carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is of proven benefit in recently symptomatic patients with severe carotid stenosis, the role of carotid endarterectomy in preventing stroke in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis remains uncertain.
The objective of this review therefore was to determine the effects of CEA for patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis.
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (June 1998), Medline (1966-Mar 1998), Current Contents (1995-Jan 1997), and reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted researchers in the field to identify additional published and unpublished studies.
All completed randomised trials comparing CEA to medical treatment in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis.
Two reviewers extracted data and assessed trial quality. Attempts were made to contact investigators to obtain missing information.
Six trials were identified, but two were excluded on methodological grounds. Four trials with 2203 patients were included. In two trials aspirin was only given to patients in the medical group, and in two all patients received aspirin. The net excess "perioperative stroke or death" rate in the surgical group was 2.7% with relative risk 6.52 (95% confidence interval 2.66-15.96). The rates of "perioperative stroke or death or subsequent ipsilateral stroke" were 6.8% in the medical group vs 4.9% in the surgical group with RR 0.73 (0.52-1.02) favouring surgery. The rates of "any stroke or perioperative death" were 10.4% (medical) vs 8.1% (surgical) with RR 0.79 (0.60-1.02). The rates of "any stroke or death" were 23.2% (medical) vs 20.2% (surgical) with RR 0.89 (0.76-1.04). There were too few patients in CEA vs aspirin trials to determine whether aspirin had any confounding effect on outcome. An additional analysis including data from a fifth small unpublished trial altered slightly the risk ratios in favour of surgery and narrowed confidence intervals sufficiently to achieve statistical significance for each outcome. However, inclusion of these data had no appreciable effect on relative or absolute risk reduction.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence favouring CEA for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, but the effect is at best barely significant, and extremely small in terms of absolute risk reduction.
虽然颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)已被证实在近期有症状的重度颈动脉狭窄患者中有益,但颈动脉内膜切除术在预防无症状性颈动脉狭窄患者中风方面的作用仍不确定。
因此,本综述的目的是确定CEA对无症状性颈动脉狭窄患者的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane中风小组试验注册库(1998年6月)、Medline(1966年 - 1998年3月)、《现刊目次》(1995年 - 1997年1月)以及相关文章的参考文献列表。我们联系了该领域的研究人员以确定其他已发表和未发表的研究。
所有比较CEA与药物治疗无症状性颈动脉狭窄患者的已完成随机试验。
两名评审员提取数据并评估试验质量。尝试联系研究者以获取缺失信息。
共识别出6项试验,但基于方法学原因排除了2项。纳入了4项试验,共2203例患者。在2项试验中,仅药物治疗组的患者给予阿司匹林,而在另外2项试验中,所有患者均接受阿司匹林治疗。手术组“围手术期中风或死亡”的净超额发生率为2.7%,相对风险为6.52(95%置信区间2.66 - 15.96)。“围手术期中风或死亡或随后同侧中风”的发生率在药物治疗组为6.8%,在手术组为4.9%,相对风险为0.73(0.52 - 1.02),支持手术治疗。“任何中风或围手术期死亡”的发生率为10.4%(药物治疗组)对8.1%(手术组),相对风险为0.79(0.60 - 1.02)。“任何中风或死亡”的发生率为23.2%(药物治疗组)对20.2%(手术组),相对风险为0.89(0.76 - 1.04)。CEA与阿司匹林试验中的患者数量过少,无法确定阿司匹林对结果是否有任何混杂影响。一项纳入第五项未发表的小型试验数据的额外分析略微改变了风险比,使其更有利于手术治疗,并充分缩小了置信区间,使每个结果均达到统计学显著性。然而,纳入这些数据对相对风险降低或绝对风险降低没有明显影响。
有一些证据支持CEA用于无症状性颈动脉狭窄,但效果充其量仅勉强显著,且就绝对风险降低而言极小。