Suppr超能文献

287例采用血管成形术和支架置入术进行颈动脉血运重建时近端与远端保护装置的比较:围手术期并发症、发病率和死亡率。

Comparison between proximal versus distal protection devices in 287 cases of carotid revascularization using angioplasty and stenting: periprocedure complications, morbidity, and mortality.

作者信息

Hernández-Fernández Francisco, Parrilla G, García-Villalba B, Espinosa de Rueda M, Zamarro J, Garrote M, Moreno A

机构信息

Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca, Carretera Murcia-Cartagena, S/N, El Palmar, 30100, Murcia, Spain,

出版信息

Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014 Jun;37(3):639-45. doi: 10.1007/s00270-013-0714-z. Epub 2013 Aug 3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Embolic protection devices may decrease periprocedural thromboembolic complications during carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS). When using proximal-protection devices (PPDs), protection starts before crossing the lesion. However, in the medical literature, its use is scarcely reported compared with that of distal-protection filters (DPDs). The objective of this study was to compare periprocedure complications, morbidity, and mortality among 287 consecutive cases of CAS performed with PPDs or DPDs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 287 patients treated with CAS at our hospital between January 2006 and March 2012. Periprocedure complications, morbidity, and mortality at 30 days, including ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, reperfusion syndrome, myocardial infarction (MI), and death, were globally registered, and the results in PPD and DPD groups were compared.

RESULTS

Two hundred eight patients were treated with DPD and 79 with PPD; 80.8 % were symptomatic. CAS procedures performed with PPD presented a statistically significant greater grade of stenosis than those with DPD (82.5 vs. 74.5 %, p < 0.001). Death rates were 1.9 and 1.3 %; stroke rates were 4.3 and 3.8 %; MI rates were 1.4 and 1.3 %; and total morbidity and mortality rates were 6.2 and 5 % (DPD and PPD groups, respectively); all differences were nonstatistically significant. No statistical difference was found between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.

CONCLUSION

Carotid angioplasty and stenting is a safe procedure to treat carotid disease in our patients. PPDs are not always associated with a greater risk of periprocedure complications, morbidity, and mortality than DPDs despite the greater grade of carotid stenosis in the PPD group. This observation may be of interest in the design of future studies with CAS.

摘要

背景

在颈动脉血管成形术和支架置入术(CAS)期间,栓子保护装置可能会减少围手术期血栓栓塞并发症。使用近端保护装置(PPD)时,在穿过病变之前就开始保护。然而,在医学文献中,与远端保护滤网(DPD)相比,其使用情况鲜有报道。本研究的目的是比较287例连续使用PPD或DPD进行CAS的病例的围手术期并发症、发病率和死亡率。

患者和方法

这是一项对2006年1月至2012年3月在我院接受CAS治疗的287例患者的回顾性分析。全面记录围手术期并发症、30天时的发病率和死亡率,包括缺血性卒中或短暂性脑缺血发作、再灌注综合征、心肌梗死(MI)和死亡,并比较PPD组和DPD组的结果。

结果

208例患者使用DPD治疗,79例使用PPD治疗;80.8%为有症状患者。使用PPD进行的CAS手术的狭窄程度在统计学上显著高于使用DPD的手术(82.5%对74.5%,p<0.001)。死亡率分别为1.9%和1.3%;卒中发生率分别为4.3%和3.8%;MI发生率分别为1.4%和1.3%;总发病率和死亡率分别为6.2%和5%(分别为DPD组和PPD组);所有差异均无统计学意义。有症状和无症状患者之间未发现统计学差异。

结论

在我们的患者中,颈动脉血管成形术和支架置入术是治疗颈动脉疾病的安全手术。尽管PPD组颈动脉狭窄程度更高,但PPD与围手术期并发症、发病率和死亡率的风险并不总是高于DPD。这一观察结果可能对未来CAS研究的设计具有参考价值。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验