Suppr超能文献

支架辅助血管成形术与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄:来自当前随机试验的证据。

Stent-supported angioplasty versus endarterectomy for carotid artery stenosis: evidence from current randomized trials.

作者信息

Zahn R, Hochadel M, Grau A, Senges J

机构信息

Herzzentrum Ludwigshafen, Kardiologie, Bremserstr. 79, 67063, Ludwigshafen, Germany.

出版信息

Z Kardiol. 2005 Dec;94(12):836-43. doi: 10.1007/s00392-005-0311-5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid artery stenoses is evolving as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, the value of CAS is still a matter of debate. Therefore, we performed a metaanalysis of the randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) on this issue.

METHODS

RCTs were identified through searching MEDLINE, textbooks and by personal communication.

RESULTS

Six finished RCTs on this issue could be identified, including 1263 patients, 628 randomized to CAS and 635 to CEA. The 30-day death or stroke rate was 8.0% (50/628) in patients treated with CAS compared to 6.1% (39/635) in CEA patients (OR=1.36, 95% CI: 0.88-2.11; p=0.17; p for heterogeneity=0.009). The rate of cranial nerve palsy was 7.1% in the CEA compared to 0% in the CAS group (p<0.0001). The rate of myocardial infarctions was reduced from 3.1 to 1% (OR=0.32, 95% CI: 0.12- 0.81; p=0.02; p for heterogeneity=0.49). The death or stroke rate during follow-up was 12.1% in patients treated with CAS compared to 12.2% in CEA patients (OR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.70-1.42; p=0.98; p for heterogeneity=0.02).

CONCLUSION

The available RCT data on CAS vs. CEA suggest that both methods seem to be equally effective concerning short- and medium-term results, while CAS is associated with lower minor complications than CEA. However, because of the significant heterogeneity between the study outcomes, the results of the large RCTs underway should be awaited before it can be advised to use CAS in a broader perspective.

摘要

背景

颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)作为颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)的替代方法正在不断发展。然而,CAS的价值仍存在争议。因此,我们针对此问题进行了一项随机对照临床试验(RCT)的荟萃分析。

方法

通过检索MEDLINE、教科书以及个人交流来识别RCT。

结果

可识别出六项关于此问题的已完成RCT,包括1263例患者,其中628例随机接受CAS治疗,635例接受CEA治疗。接受CAS治疗的患者30天死亡或卒中发生率为8.0%(50/628),而接受CEA治疗的患者为6.1%(39/635)(比值比=1.36,95%可信区间:0.88 - 2.11;p = 0.17;异质性p = 0.009)。CEA组的颅神经麻痹发生率为7.1%,而CAS组为0%(p < 0.0001)。心肌梗死发生率从3.1%降至1%(比值比=0.32,95%可信区间:0.12 - 0.81;p = 0.02;异质性p = 0.49)。随访期间接受CAS治疗的患者死亡或卒中发生率为12.1%,而接受CEA治疗的患者为12.2%(比值比=0.99,95%可信区间:0.70 - 1.42;p = 0.98;异质性p = 0.02)。

结论

关于CAS与CEA的现有RCT数据表明,两种方法在短期和中期结果方面似乎同样有效,而CAS的轻微并发症低于CEA。然而,由于研究结果之间存在显著异质性,在更广泛地建议使用CAS之前,应等待正在进行的大型RCT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