Suppr超能文献

欧洲和北美针对有症状颈动脉狭窄行内膜切除术的随机试验的主要结果及次要分析概述。

Overview of the principal results and secondary analyses from the European and North American randomised trials of endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis.

作者信息

Naylor A R, Rothwell P M, Bell P R F

机构信息

Department of Vascular Surgery, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Oxford, U.K.

出版信息

Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2003 Aug;26(2):115-29. doi: 10.1053/ejvs.2002.1946.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Review of the primary results and secondary analyses from the European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST) and the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET).

DESIGN

Review of 48 ECST and NASCET papers.

RESULTS

The simple assumption that all patients with a symptomatic stenosis >70% benefit from CEA is untenable. Approximately 70-75% will not have a stroke if treated medically. The ECST and NASCET have identified subgroups that should have expedited investigation and surgery (male sex, age >75 years, 90-99% stenosis, irregular plaque, hemispheric symptoms, recurrent events for >6 months, contralateral occlusion, multiple co-morbidity). Accordingly development of local protocols for patient selection/exclusion should involve surgeons and physicians and take account of the local operative risk. The ECST and NASCET have also shown that the ubiquitous "string sign" is not associated with a high risk of stroke, and emergency CEA is unnecessary.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons must quote their own results and be aware that a high operative risk reduces long-term benefit. Accordingly, in those centres with a higher operative death/stroke rate, some "lower risk" patients should probably be considered for best medical therapy alone. It is hoped that pooling of the ECST and NASCET databases will enable more definitive guidelines to be developed regarding who benefits most from CEA.

摘要

目的

回顾欧洲颈动脉外科试验(ECST)和北美症状性颈动脉内膜切除术试验(NASCET)的主要结果及二次分析。

设计

对48篇ECST和NASCET的论文进行回顾。

结果

认为所有症状性狭窄>70%的患者都能从颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)中获益这一简单假设是站不住脚的。如果进行药物治疗,约70 - 75%的患者不会发生中风。ECST和NASCET已确定了一些应加快检查和手术的亚组(男性、年龄>75岁、狭窄90 - 99%、斑块不规则、半球症状、复发事件>6个月、对侧闭塞、多种合并症)。因此,制定患者选择/排除的本地方案应让外科医生和内科医生参与,并考虑本地手术风险。ECST和NASCET还表明,普遍存在的“线样征”与中风高风险无关,急诊CEA也无必要。

结论

外科医生必须引用他们自己的结果,并意识到高手术风险会降低长期获益。因此,在那些手术死亡率/中风率较高的中心,一些“低风险”患者可能应仅考虑接受最佳药物治疗。希望合并ECST和NASCET数据库将能制定出关于谁能从CEA中获益最多的更明确指南。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验