Department of Neurology and Stroke Unit, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, CH-4031 Basel, Switzerland.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011 Feb;41(2):153-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.01.001. Epub 2011 Jan 26.
Recent randomised controlled trials comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) with endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis were not powered to investigate differences in risks in specific patient subgroups. We therefore performed a pooled analysis of individual patient data from the Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis trial (EVA-3S), the Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy trial (SPACE), and the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS).
Individual data from all 3433 patients randomised and analysed in these trials were pooled and analysed with fixed-effect binomial regression models adjusted for source trial. The primary outcome event was any stroke or death.
In the first 120 days after randomisation (ITT analysis), the primary outcome event occurred in 153/1725 patients in the CAS group (8.9%) compared with 99/1708 patients in the CEA group (5.8%, risk ratio [RR] 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-1.95, p = 0.0006; absolute risk difference 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-4.9). Age was the only subgroup variable which significantly modified the treatment effect: in patients <70 years old (the median age), the 120-day stroke or death risk was 5.8% in CAS and 5.7% in CEA (RR 1.00, 0.68-1.47); in patients 70 years or older, there was an estimated two-fold increase in risk with CAS over CEA (12.0% vs. 5.9%, RR 2.04, 1.48-2.82, interaction p = 0.0053).
Endarterectomy was safer in the short-term than stenting, because of an increased risk of stroke associated with stenting in patients over the age of 70 years. Stenting should be avoided in older patients, but may be as safe as endarterectomy in younger patients. Determination of the efficacy and ultimate balance between the two procedures requires further data on long-term stroke recurrence.
最近比较颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)与颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄的随机对照试验没有足够的效力来研究特定患者亚组的风险差异。因此,我们对来自 Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis 试验(EVA-3S)、支架保护血管成形术与颈动脉内膜切除术试验(SPACE)和国际颈动脉支架置入研究(ICSS)的三项随机试验的个体患者数据进行了汇总分析。
对所有纳入这三项试验并进行分析的 3433 例患者的个体数据进行了汇总,并使用固定效应二项式回归模型进行分析,调整了来源试验。主要终点事件为任何卒中和死亡。
在随机分组后的 120 天内(ITT 分析),CAS 组的 1725 例患者中有 153 例(8.9%)发生主要终点事件,而 CEA 组的 1708 例患者中有 99 例(5.8%)发生主要终点事件(风险比 [RR] 1.53,95%置信区间 [CI] 1.20-1.95,p=0.0006;绝对风险差异 3.2,95%CI 1.4-4.9)。年龄是唯一显著改变治疗效果的亚组变量:在<70 岁的患者中(中位年龄),CAS 和 CEA 的 120 天卒中和死亡风险分别为 5.8%和 5.7%(RR 1.00,0.68-1.47);而在 70 岁及以上的患者中,CAS 组的风险估计比 CEA 组高两倍(12.0%比 5.9%,RR 2.04,1.48-2.82,交互作用 p=0.0053)。
在短期来看,颈动脉内膜切除术比支架置入术更安全,因为在 70 岁以上的患者中,支架置入与卒中风险增加相关。在老年患者中应避免支架置入,但在年轻患者中可能与颈动脉内膜切除术一样安全。确定这两种手术的疗效和最终平衡需要进一步的长期卒中复发数据。