Harjai Kishore J, Mehta Rajendra H
Guthrie Clinic, Sayre, PA 18840, USA.
J Interv Cardiol. 2007 Oct;20(5):389-94. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2007.00278.x.
Three recently completed randomized studies of carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus endarterectomy-Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy (SAPPHIRE), Endarterectomy versus Stenting in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis (EVA-3S), and Stent-Supported Percutaneous Angioplasty of the Carotid Artery versus Endarterectomy (SPACE)-reached vividly different conclusions about the safety of stenting versus endarterectomy. The methodologies of these studies differed from each other in many respects. In an attempt to explain the disparate results of SAPPHIRE, EVA-3S, and SPACE, this focused review compares and contrasts these studies, with specific reference to inclusion and exclusion criteria, technical considerations, and the experience level of the interventional operators.
最近完成的三项关于颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)与内膜切除术对比的随机研究——高危患者内膜切除术的支架置入与血管成形术保护研究(SAPPHIRE)、症状性严重颈动脉狭窄患者的内膜切除术与支架置入术对比研究(EVA - 3S)以及颈动脉支架支撑经皮血管成形术与内膜切除术对比研究(SPACE)——对于支架置入术和内膜切除术的安全性得出了截然不同的结论。这些研究的方法在许多方面彼此不同。为了解释SAPPHIRE、EVA - 3S和SPACE研究结果的差异,本重点综述对这些研究进行了比较和对比,特别提及了纳入和排除标准、技术考量以及介入操作者的经验水平。