Suppr超能文献

颈动脉内膜切除术联合药物治疗与单纯药物治疗用于症状性或无症状性颈动脉狭窄患者:一项荟萃分析。

Carotid endarterectomy plus medical therapy or medical therapy alone for carotid artery stenosis in symptomatic or asymptomatic patients: a meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, University of Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

出版信息

J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012 Oct;26(5):835-44. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2012.01.044. Epub 2012 Apr 10.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare carotid endarterectomy (CEA) plus medical therapy (MT) with MT alone for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients suffering from carotid artery stenosis in terms of long-term stroke/death rate.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis of parallel randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) (blind or open) published in English.

SETTING

A university-based electronic search.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients suffering from carotid artery stenosis symptomatic or not.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were subjected to CEA plus MT or MT alone.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

For asymptomatic patients, 6 RCTs comprising 5,733 patients (CEA = 2,853 and MT = 2,880) were included. CEA did not affect the stroke/death risk for asymptomatic patients (risk ratio [RR] = 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.02; I(2) = 0%; p = 0.14). For symptomatic patients, 2 RCTs were included. They had 5,627 patients (CEA = 3,069 and MT = 2,558) of whom 2,295 patients (CEA = 1,213; MT = 1,082) had severe stenosis (North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial [NASCET] technique ≥50% and European Carotid Surgery Trial technique ≥70%). CEA decreased the stroke/death risk only for patients with severe stenosis (RR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59-0.81; p < 0.001 [random effects model]; I(2) = 0% on the odds ratio and 17% on the RR [benefit or harm side]; number needed to treat = 11 [95% CI, 8-17]).

CONCLUSIONS

CEA is helpful for recently symptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis ≥50% (NASCET technique) but adds no benefit in terms of stroke/death for asymptomatic patients.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)加药物治疗(MT)与单纯 MT 治疗对有症状和无症状颈动脉狭窄患者的长期卒中/死亡率。

设计

对英文发表的平行随机对照试验(RCT)(盲法或开放)进行的荟萃分析。

设置

基于大学的电子搜索。

参与者

有症状或无症状的颈动脉狭窄患者。

干预措施

患者接受 CEA 加 MT 或 MT 单独治疗。

测量和主要结果

对于无症状患者,纳入了 6 项 RCT,共 5733 例患者(CEA = 2853 例,MT = 2880 例)。CEA 并未影响无症状患者的卒中/死亡率(风险比 [RR] = 0.93;95%置信区间 [CI],0.84 至 1.02;I² = 0%;p = 0.14)。对于有症状的患者,纳入了 2 项 RCT,共 5627 例患者(CEA = 3069 例,MT = 2558 例),其中 2295 例(CEA = 1213 例;MT = 1082 例)狭窄严重(北美有症状颈动脉内膜切除术试验 [NASCET] 技术≥50%和欧洲颈动脉手术试验技术≥70%)。CEA 仅降低严重狭窄患者的卒中/死亡率(RR = 0.69;95%CI,0.59-0.81;p < 0.001[随机效应模型];OR 和 RR 的 I² = 0%[获益或危害侧];需要治疗的人数 = 11[95%CI,8-17])。

结论

CEA 对最近出现颈动脉狭窄≥50%(NASCET 技术)的有症状患者有益,但对无症状患者的卒中/死亡率无额外获益。

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