Suppr超能文献

同期双侧颈动脉支架置入术治疗高危患者。

Simultaneous bilateral carotid stenting in high-risk patients.

机构信息

Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010 Jun;31(6):1113-7. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1970. Epub 2010 Jan 6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The safety and efficacy of SBCAS have not been evaluated in detail. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the outcome after SBCAS in high-risk patients compared with unilateral stent placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March 2002 and October 2008, a total of 205 consecutive high-risk patients underwent CAS at our institution. Of these patients, 30 (14.6%) underwent SBCAS (n = 24) and staged SBCAS (n = 6). Patients who underwent unilateral CAS (n = 175) during the same period served as controls. The stroke risk factors, procedural results, and outcome at 30 days and 6 months, as well as the restenosis rate at 6 months, were compared by using either the chi(2) test or the Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test.

RESULTS

Our data revealed no significant differences in the stroke risk factors between the SBCAS and the control group. HPS occurred more commonly in SBCAS (ie, 16.7%, 4/24) compared with 2.9% (5/175) in the control group (P = .014). However, there was no statistical significance between 2 groups in the event rate of stroke (minor and/or major stroke), death, or restenosis at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in outcome at 6 months following stent placement between SBCAS and unilateral CAS in the high-risk patient group, even though HPS occurred more commonly after SBCAS.

摘要

背景与目的

SBCAS 的安全性和有效性尚未得到详细评估。本研究的目的是评估与单侧支架置入相比,SBCAS 在高危患者中的治疗效果。

材料与方法

2002 年 3 月至 2008 年 10 月,我院共对 205 例高危患者进行了 CAS。其中,30 例(14.6%)患者接受了 SBCAS(n=24)和分期 SBCAS(n=6)。同期行单侧 CAS(n=175)的患者作为对照组。采用卡方检验或 Kruskal-Wallis 等方差秩检验比较两组患者的中风危险因素、手术结果、30 天和 6 个月的治疗效果,以及 6 个月的再狭窄率。

结果

SBCAS 组和对照组患者的中风危险因素无显著差异。SBCAS 组更常见 HPS(16.7%,4/24),而对照组为 2.9%(5/175)(P=.014)。然而,两组患者的中风(轻微和/或主要中风)、死亡或 6 个月时再狭窄的发生率无统计学差异。

结论

高危患者中,SBCAS 与单侧 CAS 支架置入 6 个月的治疗效果无显著差异,尽管 SBCAS 后 HPS 更常见。

相似文献

1
Simultaneous bilateral carotid stenting in high-risk patients.同期双侧颈动脉支架置入术治疗高危患者。
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010 Jun;31(6):1113-7. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1970. Epub 2010 Jan 6.
9
Bilateral carotid angioplasty and stenting.双侧颈动脉血管成形术和支架置入术。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2005 Mar;64(3):275-82. doi: 10.1002/ccd.20287.

引用本文的文献

8
Anesthetic consideration for neurointerventional procedures.神经介入手术的麻醉考量
Neurointervention. 2014 Sep;9(2):72-7. doi: 10.5469/neuroint.2014.9.2.72. Epub 2014 Sep 3.

本文引用的文献

4
How to introduce carotid angioplasty without compromising patient safety.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2008 Aug;36(2):138-144. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2008.05.002. Epub 2008 Jun 24.
7
Optimal treatment of carotid artery disease.颈动脉疾病的最佳治疗方法。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Mar 11;51(10):979-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.10.052.
10

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