Suppr超能文献

关于颈动脉内膜切除术风险与手术临床指征及时机关系的系统评价。

Systematic review of the risks of carotid endarterectomy in relation to the clinical indication for and timing of surgery.

作者信息

Bond R, Rerkasem K, Rothwell P M

机构信息

Stroke Prevention Research Unit, University Department of Clinical Neurology, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, UK.

出版信息

Stroke. 2003 Sep;34(9):2290-301. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000087785.01407.CC. Epub 2003 Aug 14.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Reliable data on the risk of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in relation to clinical indication and timing of surgery are necessary to target CEA more effectively, to inform patients, to adjust risks for case mix, and to understand the mechanisms of operative stroke.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of all studies published from 1980 to 2000 inclusive that reported the risk of stroke and death resulting from CEA. Pooled estimates of risk by type of presenting ischemic event and time since the last event were obtained by Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of 383 published studies, only 103 stratified risk by indication. Although the operative risk for symptomatic stenosis overall was higher than for asymptomatic stenosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45 to 1.81; P<0.00001; 59 studies), risk in patients with ocular events only tended to be lower than for asymptomatic stenosis (OR, 0.75, 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.14; 15 studies). Operative risk was the same for stroke and cerebral transient ischemic attack (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.35; P=0.08; 23 studies) but higher for cerebral transient ischemic attack than for ocular events only (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.72 to 3.12; P<0.00001; 19 studies) and for CEA for restenosis than primary surgery (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.21 to 3.16; P=0.018; 6 studies). Urgent CEA for evolving symptoms had a much higher risk (19.2%, 95% CI, 10.7 to 27.8) than CEA for stable symptoms (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.7 to 5.7; P<0.001; 13 studies), but there was no difference between early (<3 to 6 weeks) and late (>3 to 6 weeks) CEA for stroke in stable patients (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.62; P=0.62; 11 studies). All observations were highly consistent across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of stroke and death resulting from CEA is highly dependent on the clinical indication. Audits of risk should be stratified accordingly, and patients should be informed of the risk that relates to their presenting event.

摘要

背景与目的

为了更有效地开展颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)、告知患者相关情况、根据病例组合调整风险以及了解手术性卒中的机制,有必要获取关于CEA风险与临床适应证及手术时机关系的可靠数据。

方法

我们对1980年至2000年(含)期间发表的所有报告CEA所致卒中及死亡风险的研究进行了系统评价。通过Mantel-Haenszel荟萃分析得出按缺血事件类型及距上次事件时间的风险合并估计值。

结果

在383项已发表研究中,只有103项按适应证对风险进行了分层。尽管有症状性狭窄患者的手术风险总体高于无症状性狭窄患者(优势比[OR]为1.62;95%置信区间[CI]为1.45至1.81;P<0.00001;59项研究),但仅出现眼部事件的患者的风险仅略低于无症状性狭窄患者(OR为0.75,95%CI为0.50至1.14;15项研究)。卒中与短暂性脑缺血发作患者的手术风险相同(OR为1.16;95%CI为0.99至1.35;P=0.08;23项研究),但短暂性脑缺血发作患者的手术风险高于仅出现眼部事件的患者(OR为2.31;95%CI为1.72至3.12;P<0.00001;19项研究),且CEA治疗再狭窄患者的手术风险高于初次手术患者(OR为1.95;95%CI为1.21至3.16;P=0.018;6项研究)。因症状进展而进行的紧急CEA风险(19.2%,95%CI为10.7至27.8)远高于因症状稳定而进行的CEA风险(OR为3.9;95%CI为2.7至5.7;P<0.001;13项研究),但对于症状稳定的卒中患者,早期(<3至6周)和晚期(>3至6周)CEA的风险无差异(OR为1.13;95%CI为0.79至1.62;P=0.62;11项研究)。各项观察结果在不同研究中高度一致。

结论

CEA所致卒中及死亡风险高度依赖于临床适应证。应据此对风险进行分层审核,并告知患者与其所出现事件相关的风险。

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