Sidorov A A, Kokov L S, Belo'artsev D F, Tsygankov V N, Shutikhina I V, Goncharov A I
Angiol Sosud Khir. 2012;18(2):124-9.
Presented in the article are comparative results of carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS) and eversion carotid endarterectomy (ECEA) in the remote period of follow up. The study included a total of 92 patients. Of these, 33 were subjected to CAS (Group I) and 59 underwent a total of 63 ECEAs (Group II). Depending upon the presence or absence of symptoms of cerebrovascular insufficiency (CVI), as well as based on assessment of risk factors for surgical intervention, the patients were subdivided into four subgroups: a) low-risk asymptomatic b) low-risk symptomatic, c) high-risk asymptomatic and d) high-risk symptomatic. We followed up remote results in 31 Group I patients (94%) up to 70 months (mean period of follow up amounted to 25±17 months), and in 36 Group II patients up to for up to 65 months (mean duration of the follow up amounting to 37±20 months). There was no statistically significant difference (P >0.05) between subgroups of patients along such parameters as severe or mild stroke, myocardial infarction, stroke-related death, or myocardial infarction related death. CAS and ECEA are equally highly efficient techniques of preventing acute cerebral circulation impairments in the remote period of follow up in patients of both high and low risk of surgical intervention.
本文给出了颈动脉血管成形术加支架置入术（CAS）和外翻式颈动脉内膜切除术（ECEA）远期随访的对比结果。该研究共纳入92例患者。其中，33例接受了CAS（I组），59例共接受了63次ECEA（II组）。根据是否存在脑血管供血不足（CVI）症状，以及基于手术干预风险因素的评估，将患者分为四个亚组：a）低风险无症状；b）低风险有症状；c）高风险无症状；d）高风险有症状。我们对I组31例患者（94%）进行了长达70个月的远期随访（平均随访期为25±17个月），对II组36例患者进行了长达65个月的随访（平均随访时长为37±20个月）。在严重或轻度中风、心肌梗死、中风相关死亡或心肌梗死相关死亡等参数方面，患者亚组之间无统计学显著差异（P>0.05）。CAS和ECEA在手术干预高风险和低风险患者的远期随访中，都是预防急性脑循环障碍同样高效的技术。
