Baptist Health Lexington, Lexington, Kentucky.
Baptist Health Lexington, Lexington, Kentucky.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Feb;7(2):163-168. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.09.010.
This single-center, randomized, clinical trial was designed to determine the 10-year comparative efficacy and durability of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in preventing ipsilateral ischemic stroke in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with high-grade carotid artery stenosis.
Modern clinical trials with short-term follow-up indicate CAS and CEA are equivalent in reducing the risk for ipsilateral ischemic stroke secondary to carotid stenosis. A paucity of data exists regarding long-term outcomes.
Patients of all surgical risks with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis (>70%) were randomly selected for CEA or CAS and followed a minimum of 10 years.
Long-term follow-up was achieved in 173 patients (91%). Eighty-seven (50.2%) died within this period, most commonly of nonvascular causes. No difference in the risk of stroke ipsilateral to the treated artery was noted among treatment groups (p > 0.05). Restenosis determined by sequential ultrasound was assessed only in the CAS group (3.3%) and remained asymptomatic. The combined risk of fatal or nonfatal heart attack over the 10-year period was highest in individuals with symptomatic versus asymptomatic stenosis (27.5% vs. 11.0%; hazard ratio [HR]: 2.32, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.298 to 4.146, p = 0.005) and was higher in all patients treated with CEA (HR: 2.27, 95% CI: 1.35 to 3.816, p = 0.002).
Long-term protection against ipsilateral stroke provided by CAS and CEA did not differ in this trial. The 10-year risk of fatal/nonfatal myocardial infarction was highest in all patients harboring symptomatic carotid stenosis at enrollment. The risk of fatal/nonfatal heart attack was significantly more prevalent in those symptomatic or asymptomatic patients randomized to CEA.
本单中心、随机、临床试验旨在确定颈动脉血管成形术和支架置入术(CAS)与颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)在预防症状性和无症状性高分级颈动脉狭窄患者同侧缺血性卒中方面的 10 年比较疗效和持久性。
短期随访的现代临床试验表明,CAS 和 CEA 在降低因颈动脉狭窄导致的同侧缺血性卒中风险方面等效。关于长期结果的数据很少。
所有手术风险的患者(包括症状性和无症状性颈动脉狭窄>70%)被随机选择接受 CEA 或 CAS 治疗,并至少随访 10 年。
173 例患者(91%)实现了长期随访。在此期间,87 例(50.2%)死亡,最常见的死因是非血管原因。治疗组之间未观察到治疗动脉同侧卒中风险的差异(p>0.05)。仅在 CAS 组评估了通过连续超声检测到的再狭窄(3.3%),且仍无症状。在 10 年期间,有症状与无症状狭窄患者的致命或非致命性心脏病发作的综合风险最高(27.5%比 11.0%;风险比[HR]:2.32,95%置信区间[CI]:1.298 至 4.146,p=0.005),所有接受 CEA 治疗的患者的风险更高(HR:2.27,95% CI:1.35 至 3.816,p=0.002)。
在本试验中,CAS 和 CEA 提供的同侧卒中保护在长期内没有差异。在所有入组时存在症状性颈动脉狭窄的患者中,10 年致命/非致命性心肌梗死风险最高。在随机分配到 CEA 的所有症状性或无症状性患者中,致命/非致命性心脏病发作的风险明显更为普遍。