Suppr超能文献

颈动脉支架置入后再狭窄比内膜切除术更常见:EVA-3S 研究。

Restenosis is more frequent after carotid stenting than after endarterectomy: the EVA-3S study.

机构信息

Service de Neurologie, Hôpital Gui de Chauliac, Université Montpellier, INSERM UMR894, Montpellier, France.

出版信息

Stroke. 2011 Apr;42(4):1015-20. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.589309. Epub 2011 Feb 10.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) may be more often associated with residual or recurrent stenosis than carotid endarterectomy (CEA). We compared the rates of restenosis in patients treated with CAS or CEA in the EVA-3S trial.

METHODS

Five hundred seven patients (242 treated by CAS and 265 by CEA) had carotid ultrasound follow-up (mean carotid ultrasound follow-up, 2.1 years) according to a predefined protocol. Carotid restenosis of 50% to 69% was diagnosed on planimetry, whereas carotid restenosis of ≥70% or occlusion was diagnosed using either planimetry or velocity criteria.

RESULTS

The rate of carotid restenosis of ≥50% or occlusion was significantly higher after CAS (12.5%) than after CEA (5.0%; time ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.76; P=0.02). The rates of severe restenosis of ≥70% or occlusion were low and did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (3-year rates are 3.3% in the CAS group and 2.8% in the CEA group). Age at baseline was the only vascular risk factor significantly associated with carotid restenosis. Our study could not detect any effect of carotid restenosis on ipsilateral stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term rate of carotid restenosis of ≥50% or occlusion is ≈2.5-times more common after CAS than after CEA, a difference accounted for by an excess risk in moderate restenosis. More data with longer follow-up are needed to assess the rates of late severe restenosis and to determine the relation between restenosis and recurrent stroke over time.

摘要

背景与目的

颈动脉血管成形术和支架置入术(CAS)后残余或再狭窄的发生率可能高于颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)。我们在 EVA-3S 试验中比较了 CAS 和 CEA 治疗患者的再狭窄率。

方法

507 例患者(242 例接受 CAS 治疗,265 例接受 CEA 治疗)根据预定方案进行颈动脉超声随访(平均颈动脉超声随访时间 2.1 年)。通过平面测量法诊断狭窄率为 50%至 69%的颈动脉再狭窄,而狭窄率≥70%或闭塞则通过平面测量法或速度标准进行诊断。

结果

CAS 后颈动脉再狭窄率≥50%或闭塞率(12.5%)明显高于 CEA 后(5.0%)(时间比为 0.16;95%CI,0.03-0.76;P=0.02)。严重再狭窄率≥70%或闭塞率较低,两组间无显著差异(3 年发生率 CAS 组为 3.3%,CEA 组为 2.8%)。基线时的年龄是唯一与颈动脉再狭窄显著相关的血管危险因素。我们的研究未能检测到颈动脉再狭窄对同侧卒中的任何影响。

结论

CAS 后颈动脉再狭窄率≥50%或闭塞率的短期发生率比 CEA 后高约 2.5 倍,这种差异归因于中度再狭窄的风险增加。需要更多具有更长随访时间的数据来评估晚期严重再狭窄的发生率,并确定再狭窄与随时间推移的复发性卒中之间的关系。

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