Suppr超能文献

颈动脉支架置入术的结果与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉内膜切除术后狭窄患者的结果相当。

Carotid artery stenting outcomes are equivalent to carotid endarterectomy outcomes for patients with post-carotid endarterectomy stenosis.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center, West Virginia University, Charleston, WV 25304, USA.

出版信息

J Vasc Surg. 2010 Nov;52(5):1180-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.06.074. Epub 2010 Aug 8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been advocated as an alternative to redo surgery for patients with post-carotid endarterectomy (CEA) stenosis. This study compares early and late clinical outcomes for both groups.

METHODS

This study analyzes 192 patients: 72 had reoperation (Group A) and 120 had CAS for post-CEA stenosis (Group B). Patients were followed prospectively and had duplex ultrasounds at 1 month, and every 6 to 12 months thereafter. The perioperative complications (perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction/death, cranial nerve injury) and 4-year end points were analyzed. A Kaplan-Meier lifetable analysis was used to estimate rates of freedom from stroke, stroke-free survival, ≥50% restenosis, and ≥80% restenosis.

RESULTS

Demographic/clinical characteristics were comparable for both groups, except for diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease, which were significantly higher in Group B. The indications for reoperations were transient ischemic attacks/stroke in 72% for Group A versus 57% for Group B (P=.0328). The mean follow-up was 33 months (range, 1-86 months) for Group A and 24 months (range, 1-78 months) for Group B (P=.0026). The proportion of early (<24 months) carotid restenosis prior to intervention was 51% in Group A versus 27% in Group B (P=.0013). The perioperative stroke rates were 3% and 1%, respectively (P=.5573). There were no myocardial infarctions or deaths in either group. The overall incidence of cranial nerve injury was 14% for Group A versus 0% for Group B (P<.0001). However, there was no statistical difference between the groups relating to permanent cranial nerve injury (1% versus 0%). The combined early and late stroke rates for Groups A and B were 3% and 2%, respectively (P=.6347). The stroke-free rates at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years for Groups A and B were 97%, 97%, 97%, and 97% and 98%, 98%, 98%, and 98%, respectively (P=.6490). The stroke-free survival rates were not significantly different. The rates of freedom from ≥50% restenosis at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were 98%, 95%, 95%, and 95% for Group A versus 95%, 89%, 80%, and 72% for Group B (P=.0175). The freedom from ≥80% restenosis at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years for Groups A and B were 98%, 97%, 97%, and 97% versus 99%, 96%, 92%, and 87%, respectively (P=.2281). Four patients (one symptomatic) in Group B had reintervention for ≥80% restenosis. The rate of freedom from reintervention for Groups A and B were 100%, 100%, 100%, and 100% versus 94%, 89%, 83%, and 79%, respectively (P=.0634).

CONCLUSIONS

CAS is as safe as redo CEA. Redo CEA has a higher incidence of transient cranial nerve injury; however, CAS has a higher incidence of ≥50% in-stent restenosis.

摘要

背景

颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)已被提倡作为颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)后狭窄患者再次手术的替代方法。本研究比较了两组患者的早期和晚期临床结果。

方法

本研究分析了 192 名患者:72 名患者接受了再次手术(A 组),120 名患者接受了 CEA 后狭窄的 CAS(B 组)。患者接受了前瞻性随访,并在术后 1 个月、此后每 6-12 个月进行了双功能超声检查。分析了围手术期并发症(围手术期卒中、心肌梗死/死亡、颅神经损伤)和 4 年终点。采用 Kaplan-Meier 寿命表分析估计无卒中、无卒中生存、≥50%再狭窄和≥80%再狭窄的无事件率。

结果

两组患者的人口统计学/临床特征相似,除了糖尿病和冠心病,B 组明显更高。A 组再次手术的指征为短暂性脑缺血发作/卒中占 72%,B 组为 57%(P=.0328)。A 组的平均随访时间为 33 个月(范围 1-86 个月),B 组为 24 个月(范围 1-78 个月)(P=.0026)。在干预前,A 组早期(<24 个月)颈动脉再狭窄的比例为 51%,B 组为 27%(P=.0013)。围手术期卒中发生率分别为 3%和 1%(P=.5573)。两组均无心肌梗死或死亡。A 组颅神经损伤总发生率为 14%,B 组为 0%(P<.0001)。然而,两组之间永久性颅神经损伤的发生率没有统计学差异(1%对 0%)。A 组和 B 组的早期和晚期卒中总发生率分别为 3%和 2%(P=.6347)。A 组和 B 组 1、2、3 和 4 年的无卒中率分别为 97%、97%、97%和 97%和 98%、98%、98%和 98%(P=.6490)。无卒中生存率无显著差异。A 组 1、2、3 和 4 年无≥50%再狭窄的无事件率分别为 98%、95%、95%和 95%,B 组为 95%、89%、80%和 72%(P=.0175)。A 组和 B 组 1、2、3 和 4 年无≥80%再狭窄的无事件率分别为 98%、97%、97%和 97%和 99%、96%、92%和 87%(P=.2281)。B 组有 4 名患者(1 名症状性)因≥80%再狭窄再次介入治疗。A 组和 B 组的无再介入率分别为 100%、100%、100%和 100%和 94%、89%、83%和 79%(P=.0634)。

结论

CAS 与再次 CEA 一样安全。再次 CEA 颅神经损伤的发生率较高;然而,CAS 支架内再狭窄发生率较高。

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