Department of Neurology and StrokeUnit, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland.
Lancet. 2010 Sep 25;376(9746):1062-73. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61009-4. Epub 2010 Sep 15.
Results from randomised controlled trials have shown a higher short-term risk of stroke associated with carotid stenting than with carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis. However, these trials were underpowered for investigation of whether carotid artery stenting might be a safe alternative to endarterectomy in specific patient subgroups. We therefore did a preplanned meta-analysis of individual patient data from three randomised controlled trials.
Data from all 3433 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis who were randomly assigned and analysed in the Endarterectomy versus Angioplasty in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis (EVA-3S) trial, the Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy (SPACE) trial, and the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) were pooled and analysed with fixed-effect binomial regression models adjusted for source trial. The primary outcome event was any stroke or death. The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis included all patients and outcome events occurring between randomisation and 120 days thereafter. The per-protocol (PP) analysis was restricted to patients receiving the allocated treatment and events occurring within 30 days after treatment.
In the first 120 days after randomisation (ITT analysis), any stroke or death occurred significantly more often in the carotid stenting group (153 [8·9%] of 1725) than in the carotid endarterectomy group (99 [5·8%] of 1708, risk ratio [RR] 1·53, [95% CI 1·20-1·95], p=0·0006; absolute risk difference 3·2 [1·4-4·9]). Of all subgroup variables assessed, only age significantly modified the treatment effect: in patients younger than 70 years (median age), the estimated 120-day risk of stroke or death was 50 (5·8%) of 869 patients in the carotid stenting group and 48 (5·7%) of 843 in the carotid endarterectomy group (RR 1·00 [0·68-1·47]); in patients 70 years or older, the estimated risk with carotid stenting was twice that with carotid endarterectomy (103 [12·0%] of 856 vs 51 [5·9%] of 865, 2·04 [1·48-2·82], interaction p=0·0053, p=0·0014 for trend). In the PP analysis, risk estimates of stroke or death within 30 days of treatment among patients younger than 70 years were 43 (5·1%) of 851 patients in the stenting group and 37 (4·5%) of 821 in the endarterectomy group (1·11 [0·73-1·71]); in patients 70 years or older, the estimates were 87 (10·5%) of 828 patients and 36 (4·4%) of 824, respectively (2·41 [1·65-3·51]; categorical interaction p=0·0078, trend interaction p=0·0013].
Stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis should be avoided in older patients (age ≥70 years), but might be as safe as endarterectomy in younger patients.
The Stroke Association.
随机对照试验的结果表明,与颈动脉内膜切除术相比,颈动脉支架置入术治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄与短期中风风险较高相关。然而,这些试验在调查颈动脉支架置入术是否可能成为特定患者亚组中内膜切除术的安全替代方法方面的效力不足。因此,我们对三个随机对照试验的个体患者数据进行了预先计划的荟萃分析。
对所有 3433 例有症状性颈动脉狭窄的患者进行随机分配和分析,这些患者均来自于症状性严重颈动脉狭窄患者颈动脉内膜切除术与血管成形术(EVA-3S)试验、支架保护血管成形术与颈动脉内膜切除术(SPACE)试验和国际颈动脉支架置入研究(ICSS)。采用固定效应二项式回归模型进行分析,对源试验进行调整。主要终点事件是任何中风或死亡。意向治疗(ITT)分析包括所有患者和随机分组后 120 天内发生的结局事件。按方案(PP)分析仅限于接受分配治疗的患者和治疗后 30 天内发生的事件。
在随机分组后的头 120 天内(ITT 分析),颈动脉支架置入组(1725 例中的 153 例[8.9%])发生任何中风或死亡的频率明显高于颈动脉内膜切除术组(1708 例中的 99 例[5.8%]),风险比(RR)为 1.53(95%CI 1.20-1.95),p=0.0006;绝对风险差异为 3.2(1.4-4.9)。在所评估的所有亚组变量中,只有年龄显著改变了治疗效果:在年龄小于 70 岁的患者中(中位年龄),颈动脉支架置入组 869 例患者中 120 天内中风或死亡的风险估计为 50(5.8%),颈动脉内膜切除术组 843 例患者中为 48(5.7%)(RR 1.00 [0.68-1.47]);在 70 岁或以上的患者中,颈动脉支架置入的风险是颈动脉内膜切除术的两倍(颈动脉支架置入组 856 例患者中有 103 例[12.0%],颈动脉内膜切除术组 865 例患者中有 51 例[5.9%],2.04 [1.48-2.82],p=0.0053,p=0.0014 呈趋势性)。在年龄小于 70 岁的患者中,在治疗后 30 天内发生中风或死亡的风险估计在颈动脉支架置入组为 43(5.1%),在颈动脉内膜切除术组为 37(4.5%)(1.11 [0.73-1.71]);在 70 岁或以上的患者中,估计值分别为 87(10.5%)和 36(4.4%)(2.41 [1.65-3.51]);分类交互作用 p=0.0078,趋势交互作用 p=0.0013。
对于年龄较大的患者(≥70 岁),应避免对症状性颈动脉狭窄进行支架置入术,但在年龄较小的患者中,支架置入术可能与内膜切除术一样安全。
英国中风协会。