• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

颈动脉支架置入术和动脉内膜切除术的风险调整后30天结局:来自血管外科学会(SVS)血管登记处的结果

Risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes of carotid stenting and endarterectomy: results from the SVS Vascular Registry.

作者信息

Sidawy Anton N, Zwolak Robert M, White Rodney A, Siami Flora S, Schermerhorn Marc L, Sicard Gregorio A

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Washington VA Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.

出版信息

J Vasc Surg. 2009 Jan;49(1):71-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.08.039. Epub 2008 Nov 22.

DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2008.08.039
PMID:19028045
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

As the first operational societal registry of carotid procedures, the Outcomes Committee of the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) developed the Vascular Registry (VR) in response to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) National Coverage Decision on carotid artery stenting (CAS). Although CMS requires data submission only on CAS, the VR collects similar data on carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to allow comparison of outcomes, as well as potential for expansion to other procedures.

METHODS

SVS-VR on-line provider-reported data include baseline through follow-up visits to better understand long-term risks and benefits associated with CAS and CEA. The primary outcomes are combined death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI). An independent data coordinating center maintains the database, which is Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant and auditable.

RESULTS

As of December 26, 2007, 6403 procedures with discharge data were entered by 287 providers at 56 centers on 2763 CAS patients (1450 with 30-day outcomes, 52.5%) and 3259 CEA patients (1368 with 30-day outcomes, 42%). Of the total cohort, 98% of CEA and 70.7% of CAS (P < .001) were performed for atherosclerotic disease. Restenosis accounted for 22.3% and post-radiation induced stenosis in 4.5% of CAS patients. Preprocedure lateralizing neurologic symptoms were present in a greater proportion of CAS patients (49.2%) than CEA patients (42.4%, P < .001). CAS patients also had higher preprocedure prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD), MI, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and cardiac arrhythmia. For CAS, death/stroke/MI at 30 days was 7.13% for symptomatic patients and 4.60% for asymptomatic patients (P = .04). For CEA, death/stroke/MI at 30 days was 3.75% in symptomatic patients and 1.97% in asymptomatic patients (P = .05). After risk-adjustment for age, history of stroke, diabetes, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (ie, factors found to be significant confounders in outcomes using backwards elimination), logistic regression analysis suggested better outcomes following CEA. There were no statistically significant differences when examining CAS outcomes based on center volume. CAS in atherosclerotic disease had significantly worse outcomes than in nonatherosclerotic stenosis. When CAS and CEA were compared in the treatment of atherosclerotic disease only, the difference in outcomes between the two procedures was more pronounced, with death/stroke/MI 6.42% after CAS vs 2.62% following CEA, P < .0001.

CONCLUSION

Following best possible risk adjustment of these unmatched groups, symptomatic and asymptomatic CAS patients had significantly higher 30-day postprocedure incidence of death/stroke/MI when compared with CEA patients. The initial 1.5 years of data collection provide proof of concept that a specialty society based VR can succeed in meeting regulatory and scientific goals. With continued enrollment and follow-up, analysis of SVS-VR will supplement randomized trials by providing real-world comparisons of CAS and CEA with sufficient numbers to serve as an outcome assessment tool of important patient subsets and across the spectrum of peripheral vascular procedures.

摘要

目的

作为首个颈动脉手术的社会运营登记处,血管外科学会(SVS)成果委员会针对医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)关于颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)的全国覆盖决定,开发了血管登记处(VR)。尽管CMS仅要求提交CAS的数据,但VR收集颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)的类似数据,以便比较结果,并为扩展到其他手术提供可能性。

方法

SVS-VR在线由提供者报告的数据包括从基线到随访的信息,以更好地了解与CAS和CEA相关的长期风险和益处。主要结局是死亡、中风和心肌梗死(MI)的综合情况。一个独立的数据协调中心维护该数据库,该数据库符合《健康保险流通与责任法案》(HIPAA)且可审计。

结果

截至2007年12月26日,56个中心的287名提供者录入了6403例有出院数据的手术,涉及2763例CAS患者(1450例有30天结局,占52.5%)和3259例CEA患者(1368例有30天结局,占42%)。在整个队列中,98%的CEA和70.7%的CAS(P <.001)是针对动脉粥样硬化疾病进行的。CAS患者中再狭窄占22.3%,放疗后诱发的狭窄占4.5%。术前有定位性神经症状的CAS患者比例(49.2%)高于CEA患者(42.4%,P <.001)。CAS患者术前冠状动脉疾病(CAD)、MI、充血性心力衰竭(CHF)、慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)和心律失常的患病率也更高。对于CAS,有症状患者30天时的死亡/中风/MI发生率为7.13%,无症状患者为4.60%(P =.04)。对于CEA,有症状患者30天时的死亡/中风/MI发生率为3.75%,无症状患者为1.97%(P =.05)。在对年龄、中风病史、糖尿病和美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分级(即通过向后排除法发现对结局有显著混杂作用的因素)进行风险调整后,逻辑回归分析表明CEA后的结局更好。根据中心手术量检查CAS结局时,没有统计学上的显著差异。动脉粥样硬化疾病中的CAS结局明显比非动脉粥样硬化狭窄中的更差。仅在治疗动脉粥样硬化疾病时比较CAS和CEA,两种手术的结局差异更明显,CAS后死亡/中风/MI为6.42%,CEA后为2.62%,P <.0001。

结论

在对这些不匹配组进行尽可能好的风险调整后,有症状和无症状的CAS患者与CEA患者相比,术后30天死亡/中风/MI的发生率显著更高。最初1.5年的数据收集提供了概念验证,即基于专业学会建立的VR能够成功实现监管和科学目标。随着持续的入组和随访,SVS-VR的分析将通过对CAS和CEA进行真实世界的比较,为随机试验提供补充,这些比较有足够数量的数据,可作为重要患者亚组以及外周血管手术全范围内结局评估的工具。

相似文献

1
Risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes of carotid stenting and endarterectomy: results from the SVS Vascular Registry.颈动脉支架置入术和动脉内膜切除术的风险调整后30天结局:来自血管外科学会(SVS)血管登记处的结果
J Vasc Surg. 2009 Jan;49(1):71-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.08.039. Epub 2008 Nov 22.
2
Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry evaluation of stent cell design on carotid artery stenting outcomes.血管外科学会血管注册评估颈动脉支架置入术结果中支架细胞设计。
J Vasc Surg. 2011 Jul;54(1):71-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.12.054. Epub 2011 Mar 31.
3
Carotid endarterectomy was performed with lower stroke and death rates than carotid artery stenting in the United States in 2003 and 2004.2003年和2004年在美国,颈动脉内膜切除术的实施带来的中风和死亡率低于颈动脉支架置入术。
J Vasc Surg. 2007 Dec;46(6):1112-1118. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.08.030.
4
Intracranial hemorrhage after carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting in the United States in 2005.2005年美国颈动脉内膜切除术和颈动脉支架置入术后颅内出血情况
J Vasc Surg. 2009 Mar;49(3):623-8; discussion 628-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.09.064.
5
Analysis of Florida and New York state hospital discharges suggests that carotid stenting in symptomatic women is associated with significant increase in mortality and perioperative morbidity compared with carotid endarterectomy.对佛罗里达州和纽约州医院出院患者的分析表明,与颈动脉内膜切除术相比,症状性女性颈动脉支架置入术与死亡率和围手术期发病率显著增加相关。
J Vasc Surg. 2012 Aug;56(2):334-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2012.01.066. Epub 2012 May 12.
6
A comparative analysis of the outcomes of carotid stenting and carotid endarterectomy in women.女性颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗效果的对比分析。
J Vasc Surg. 2010 Feb;51(2):337-44; discussion 344. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2009.08.095. Epub 2009 Nov 24.
7
Treatment of asymptomatic carotid artery disease: similar early outcomes after carotid stenting for high-risk patients and endarterectomy for standard-risk patients.无症状性颈动脉疾病的治疗:高危患者行颈动脉支架置入术与标准风险患者行内膜切除术的早期结局相似。
J Vasc Surg. 2006 May;43(5):953-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2006.01.008. Epub 2006 Apr 17.
8
Carotid revascularization outcomes comparing distal filters, flow reversal, and endarterectomy.比较远端滤器、血流逆转和内膜切除术的颈动脉血运重建结果。
J Vasc Surg. 2011 Oct;54(4):1000-4; discussion 1004-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.03.279. Epub 2011 Aug 25.
9
Carotid Revascularization Using Endarterectomy or Stenting Systems (CaRESS) phase I clinical trial: 1-year results.使用颈动脉内膜切除术或支架系统的颈动脉血运重建术(CaRESS)I期临床试验:1年结果。
J Vasc Surg. 2005 Aug;42(2):213-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2005.04.023.
10
Carotid angioplasty and stenting, success relies on appropriate patient selection.颈动脉血管成形术和支架置入术,成功与否取决于合适的患者选择。
J Vasc Surg. 2008 May;47(5):946-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.12.049.

引用本文的文献

1
Brazilian Angiology and Vascular Surgery Society Guidelines for the treatment of extracranial cerebrovascular disease.巴西血管病学与血管外科学会颅外脑血管疾病治疗指南
J Vasc Bras. 2024 May 31;23:e20230094. doi: 10.1590/1677-5449.202300942. eCollection 2024.
2
Impact of Physician Experience on Stroke or Death Rates in Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting: Insights from the Vascular Quality Initiative.医师经验对经股颈动脉支架置入术中卒中或死亡率的影响:来自血管质量改进计划的见解
medRxiv. 2023 Nov 17:2023.11.16.23298660. doi: 10.1101/2023.11.16.23298660.
3
Influences of age and gender on operative risks following carotid endarterectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
年龄和性别对颈动脉内膜切除术术后手术风险的影响:系统评价和荟萃分析。
PLoS One. 2023 May 10;18(5):e0285540. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285540. eCollection 2023.
4
Carotid Artery Stenting With Double-Layer Stent: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.颈动脉支架置入术联合双层支架:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Endovasc Ther. 2024 Jun;31(3):339-349. doi: 10.1177/15266028221126940. Epub 2022 Oct 10.
5
Utility of automated data-adaptive propensity score method for confounding by indication in comparative effectiveness study in real world Medicare and registry data.自动化数据自适应倾向评分法在真实世界 Medicare 和注册研究中用于指示性混杂的比较有效性研究中的效用。
PLoS One. 2022 Aug 15;17(8):e0272975. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272975. eCollection 2022.
6
Extra-Cranial Carotid Artery Stenosis: An Objective Analysis of the Available Evidence.颅外颈动脉狭窄:现有证据的客观分析
Front Neurol. 2022 Jun 21;13:739999. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.739999. eCollection 2022.
7
In-hospital outcomes alone underestimate rates of 30-day major adverse events after carotid artery stenting.仅院内结局就低估了颈动脉支架置入术后 30 天主要不良事件的发生率。
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Apr;71(4):1233-1241. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.06.201. Epub 2020 Feb 13.
8
Should We Be Afraid of Antiplatelet Treatment before Carotid Endarterectomy?在颈动脉内膜切除术之前,我们应该害怕抗血小板治疗吗?
Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 Aug 20;24(4):213-214. doi: 10.5761/atcs.lte.18-00013. Epub 2018 May 30.
9
Surgical and Endovascular Treatment of Extracranial Carotid Stenosis.颅外颈动脉狭窄的手术和血管内治疗。
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2017 Oct 27;114(43):729-736. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2017.0729.
10
Primary Angioplasty Versus Stenting for Endovascular Management of Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease Following Acute Ischemic Stroke.急性缺血性卒中后颅内动脉粥样硬化疾病血管内治疗中,直接血管成形术与支架置入术的比较
J Vasc Interv Neurol. 2016 Jun;9(1):1-6.