Qureshi Adnan I, Kirmani Jawad F, Divani Afshin A, Hobson Robert W
Zeenat Qureshi Stroke Research Center, Department of Neurology and Neurosciences, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey 07103-2425, USA.
Neurosurgery. 2005 Jun;56(6):1171-9; discussion 1179-81. doi: 10.1227/01.neu.0000159638.45389.c2.
Carotid angioplasty with or without stent placement (CAS) has been proposed as an alternative method to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treatment of carotid stenosis. Small randomized trials have evaluated the comparative efficacy of both methods; however, definitive evidence is lacking.
A search was made for randomized clinical trials comparing CAS and CEA for treatment of carotid stenosis. A literature search of MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases was supplemented by a review of bibliographies of relevant articles and personal files. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model because significant heterogeneity was observed. Outcomes compared included 1-month composite rates of stroke or death, all strokes, disabling strokes, myocardial infarction, cranial nerve injury, and major bleeding and 1-year rates of both minor and major ipsilateral strokes.
We analyzed five randomized trials totaling 1154 patients (577 randomized to CEA and 577 randomized to CAS). The composite end point of 1-month stroke or death rate was not different between patients treated with CAS compared with those treated with CEA (relative risk [RR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-2.8; P = 0.5). The 1-month stroke rate (831 patients analyzed: RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.4-3.6; P = 0.7) and disabling stroke rate (831 patients analyzed: RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.2-3.5; P = 0.9) was similar for CAS and CEA. The 1-month rates of myocardial infarction (814 patients analyzed: RR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.9) and cranial nerve injury (918 patients analyzed: RR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.3) were significantly lower for CAS. No significant differences were observed in 1-year rates of ipsilateral stroke (814 patients analyzed: RR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.2; P = 0.2).
The 30-day stroke and death rates associated with CAS and CEA were not significantly different. Lower rates of myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury were observed with CAS compared with CEA.
颈动脉血管成形术(无论是否置入支架,即CAS)已被提议作为颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)治疗颈动脉狭窄的替代方法。小型随机试验评估了这两种方法的相对疗效;然而,确凿证据仍不足。
检索比较CAS和CEA治疗颈动脉狭窄的随机临床试验。除了对MEDLINE、PubMed和Cochrane数据库进行文献检索外,还查阅了相关文章的参考文献和个人档案。由于观察到显著的异质性,因此使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。比较的结果包括1个月时的卒中或死亡率、所有卒中、致残性卒中、心肌梗死、颅神经损伤和大出血的综合发生率,以及1年时同侧轻微和严重卒中的发生率。
我们分析了5项随机试验,共1154例患者(577例随机接受CEA,577例随机接受CAS)。与接受CEA治疗的患者相比,接受CAS治疗的患者1个月时卒中或死亡率的复合终点无差异(相对危险度[RR],1.3;95%置信区间[CI],0.6 - 2.8;P = 0.5)。CAS和CEA的1个月卒中发生率(分析831例患者:RR,1.3;95% CI,0.4 - 3.6;P = 0.7)和致残性卒中发生率(分析831例患者:RR,0.9;95% CI,0.2 - 3.5;P = 0.9)相似。CAS的1个月心肌梗死发生率(分析814例患者:RR,0.3;95% CI,0.1 - 0.9)和颅神经损伤发生率(分析918例患者:RR,0.05;95% CI,0.01 - 0.