Bakoyiannis C, Economopoulos K P, Georgopoulos S, Bastounis E, Papalambros E
First Department of Surgery, Vascular Division, University of Athens, "Laiko" General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Int Angiol. 2010 Jun;29(3):205-15.
Carotid angioplasty with or without stent placement (CAS) has been proposed as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the safety and efficacy of endovascular techniques with surgery for carotid stenosis. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane databases to identify randomized controlled trials comparing CAS with CEA. Both random and fixed effects models were used to calculate the pooled odds ratios (OR) and their confidence intervals, with values lower than one indicating a benefit from the endovascular approach. Continuity correction was used for studies with zero events in one arm. We identified 11 trials randomizing a total of 3 258 patients; 1 623 to CEA and 1 635 to CAS. By random effects model, there was no significant difference between the treatments for any stroke (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.82-2.02), or death or any stroke at 30-day (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.92-1.84) and death or any stroke at 6 months (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.86-2.09) or 1 year (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.24-8.27). However there was a significantly higher risk of 30-day death or any stroke (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.75) after CAS by fixed effects model. Endovascular treatment significantly reduced the risk of 30-day cranial nerve injury (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04-0.44). In conclusion treating carotid artery stenosis with CAS offers lower rates of cranial nerve injury compared with CEA. CAS could not be proved to be as safe as CEA in treating carotid artery stenosis. The results of ongoing randomized trials comparing CAS with CEA are easily awaited because they may provide sufficient evidence for a change in clinical practice.
对于颈动脉狭窄的治疗,已有人提出采用有或无支架置入的颈动脉血管成形术(CAS)作为颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)的替代方案。我们对随机对照试验进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,以比较血管内技术与手术治疗颈动脉狭窄的安全性和有效性。我们检索了MEDLINE、PubMed和Cochrane数据库,以确定比较CAS与CEA的随机对照试验。采用随机效应模型和固定效应模型计算合并比值比(OR)及其置信区间,比值比小于1表明血管内治疗方法具有优势。对于某一组中事件数为零的研究,采用连续性校正。我们确定了11项试验,共纳入3258例患者,其中1623例接受CEA,1635例接受CAS。采用随机效应模型时,在任何卒中(OR,1.28;95%CI,0.82 - 2.02)、30天内死亡或任何卒中(OR,1.30;95%CI,0.92 - 1.84)、6个月时死亡或任何卒中(OR,1.34;95%CI,0.86 - 2.09)或1年时死亡或任何卒中(OR,1.41;95%CI,0.24 - 8.27)方面,两种治疗方法之间无显著差异。然而,采用固定效应模型时,CAS术后30天死亡或任何卒中的风险显著更高(OR,1.33;95%CI,1.01 - 1.75)。血管内治疗显著降低了30天颅神经损伤的风险(OR,0.13;95%CI,0.04 - 0.44)。总之,与CEA相比,采用CAS治疗颈动脉狭窄时颅神经损伤发生率较低。在治疗颈动脉狭窄方面,无法证明CAS与CEA一样安全。比较CAS与CEA的正在进行的随机试验结果值得期待,因为它们可能为临床实践的改变提供充分证据。