Department of Neurosurgery, University of New Mexico, MSC 10 5615, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA.
Stroke. 2011 Dec;42(12):3637-9. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.627745. Epub 2011 Sep 29.
The Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study (COSS) was an improvement over the Extracranial-Intracranial Bypass Study, which did not utilize physiological selection. To assess possible reasons for early closure of the COSS trial, we reviewed COSS methods used to identify high-risk patients and compared results with separate quantitative data.
Increased oxygen extraction fraction (OEF) by positron emission tomography is a gold standard for ischemia, but the specific thresholds and equivalency of the semiquantitative OEF ratio utilized in COSS and quantitative OEF are at issue.
The semiquantitative hemispheric OEF ratio used in COSS did not identify the same group of patients as did quantitative OEF using a threshold of 50%.
The failure of COSS is likely caused by a failure of the semiquantitative, hemispheric OEF ratio method rather than by the selection for bypass based on hemodynamic compromise.
颈动脉闭塞手术研究(COSS)是对外科颈动脉内膜切除术研究(EC-IC)的改进,后者未采用生理选择。为评估 COSS 试验早期关闭的可能原因,我们回顾了用于识别高危患者的 COSS 方法,并将结果与单独的定量数据进行了比较。
正电子发射断层扫描(PET)中氧摄取分数(OEF)增加是缺血的金标准,但在 COSS 中使用的半定量 OEF 比值和定量 OEF 的具体阈值和等效性存在争议。
COSS 中使用的半球半定量 OEF 比值未能像定量 OEF 那样,以 50%的阈值识别出相同的患者群体。
COSS 的失败可能是由于半球半定量 OEF 比值方法的失败,而不是基于血流动力学受损的旁路选择。