Seretis K, Goudakos I, Vlachakis I, Anthimidis G, Papadimitriou D
Postgraduate Education in Medical Research Methodology, School of Medicine, Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Int Angiol. 2007 Dec;26(4):353-60.
Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the gold standard for the treatment of carotid stenosis, but carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has emerged as a potential less invasive therapeutic alternative to patients who would otherwise be considered as high risk for open surgery. The aim of this review was to pool the most current studies of the growing body of literature in which outcomes of CEA or CAS are compared in octogenarians and non-octogenarians to determine the current safety and efficacy of these therapeutic procedures, due to a lack of randomized controlled trials.
An electronic search of Medline, PubMed and Cochrane databases was supplemented by a review of bibliographies of relevant articles, as well as manual searches of relevant journals. Outcomes included 30-day stroke rate, death rate, combined stroke/death rate and myocardial infarction rate between octogenarians and non-octogenarians.
Randomized clinical trials or studies comparing CEA and CAS in the same study population were not identified. CEA and CAS outcomes, in octogenarians compared to younger cohorts, were evaluated in 10 and 5 studies, respectively. Analysis of data indicates no significant difference in adverse events reported in the two groups in the majority of studies of CEA, as opposed to the findings of CAS studies.
The current review supports the viewpoint that CEA remains the standard of care in octogenarians, towards which other procedures to prevent stroke should be compared. It also challenges the definition of the ''high-risk''/age blanket classification and suggests that until the longevity, safety and efficacy of CAS is established, wide applicability of CAS to such ''high-risk'' patients should be questioned and limited to ongoing controlled clinical trials.
颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)是治疗颈动脉狭窄的金标准,但颈动脉血管成形术和支架置入术(CAS)已成为一种潜在的侵入性较小的治疗选择,适用于那些被认为进行开放手术风险较高的患者。由于缺乏随机对照试验,本综述的目的是汇总最新的文献研究,比较80岁及以上老人与非80岁老人接受CEA或CAS治疗的结果,以确定这些治疗方法目前的安全性和有效性。
通过对Medline、PubMed和Cochrane数据库进行电子检索,并补充查阅相关文章的参考文献以及手动检索相关期刊。观察指标包括80岁及以上老人与非80岁老人之间的30天卒中率、死亡率、卒中/死亡合并率和心肌梗死率。
未找到在同一研究人群中比较CEA和CAS的随机临床试验或研究。分别在10项和5项研究中评估了80岁及以上老人与较年轻队列接受CEA和CAS治疗的结果。数据分析表明,在大多数CEA研究中,两组报告的不良事件无显著差异,这与CAS研究的结果相反。
当前的综述支持以下观点,即CEA仍然是80岁及以上老人的治疗标准,应将其他预防卒中的手术与之进行比较。它还对“高风险”/年龄一概而论的分类定义提出了质疑,并表明在CAS的长期疗效、安全性得到确立之前,应质疑其对此类“高风险”患者的广泛适用性,并将其限制在正在进行的对照临床试验中。