Suppr超能文献

颈动脉血管成形术(伴或不伴支架置入)与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄的比较:一项荟萃分析。

Carotid angioplasty with or without stenting versus carotid endarterectomy for carotid artery stenosis: a meta-analysis.

作者信息

Jeng Jiann-Shing, Liu Hon-Man, Tu Yong-Kwang

机构信息

Stroke Center & Department of Neurology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.

出版信息

J Neurol Sci. 2008 Jul 15;270(1-2):40-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2008.01.012. Epub 2008 Mar 4.

Abstract

Carotid angioplasty with or without stent placement (CAS) has emerged as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for revascularization of severe carotid artery stenosis in patients with high risk for surgery. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of both treatments from data for previous randomized trials. We did a literature search using Medline, PubMed, Cochrane database, and relevant articles for randomized trials comparing CAS with CEA. A meta-analysis using both random-effects and fixed-effects models compared outcome events of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and cranial nerve injury at 30 days, 6 months, or 1 year after procedure. A total of nine trials involving 3138 patients (1564, CEA; 1574, CAS) with symptomatic or asymptomatic stenosis were included for analysis. By random-effects model, there was no significant difference of event rates between treatments for any stroke (odds ratio for CAS [95% confidence interval], 1.46 [0.91-2.36]), death or any stroke (1.37 [0.90-2.10]), or death, any stroke, or myocardial infarction (1.02 [0.49-2.11]) at 30-day, and death and any stroke at 6 months (1.50 [0.69-3.23]) or 1 year (1.25 [0.59-2.63]). But, there were significantly higher 30-day event rates after CAS than CEA for death or any stroke (1.37 [1.04-1.81]) by fix-effects model, accompanied with significant heterogeneity (p=0.04). Risk of cranial nerve injury was much lower in CAS than in CEA (0.12 [0.05-0.29]). Except for lower risk of cranial nerve injury, CAS is neither safer nor associated with a better short-term outcome as compared to CEA in treating carotid artery stenosis.

摘要

对于手术风险高的严重颈动脉狭窄患者,颈动脉血管成形术(无论是否置入支架,即CAS)已成为颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)用于血运重建的替代方案。本荟萃分析通过既往随机试验数据比较了两种治疗方法的疗效和安全性。我们使用Medline、PubMed、Cochrane数据库及相关随机试验文章进行文献检索,以比较CAS与CEA。采用随机效应模型和固定效应模型的荟萃分析比较了术后30天、6个月或1年时死亡、中风、心肌梗死和颅神经损伤等结局事件。共纳入9项试验,涉及3138例有症状或无症状狭窄的患者(1564例接受CEA;1574例接受CAS)进行分析。根据随机效应模型,在30天时,任何中风(CAS的优势比[95%置信区间],1.46[0.91 - 2.36])、死亡或任何中风(1.37[0.90 - 2.10])、死亡、任何中风或心肌梗死(1.02[0.49 - 2.11])的事件发生率在两种治疗方法之间无显著差异;在6个月(1.50[0.69 - 3.23])或1年(1.25[0.59 - 2.63])时,死亡和任何中风的事件发生率也无显著差异。但是,根据固定效应模型,在30天时,CAS组死亡或任何中风的事件发生率显著高于CEA组(1.37[1.04 - 1.81]),且伴有显著异质性(p = 0.04)。CAS组颅神经损伤风险远低于CEA组(0.12[0.05 - 0.29])。除颅神经损伤风险较低外,在治疗颈动脉狭窄方面,与CEA相比,CAS既不安全,短期结局也未更好。

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