Suppr超能文献

颈动脉内膜切除术和支架置入术后围手术期心肌梗死:系统评价与荟萃分析

Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction After Carotid Endarterectomy and Stenting: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

Boulanger Marion, Camelière Lucie, Felgueiras Rui, Berger Ludovic, Rerkasem Kittipan, Rothwell Peter M, Touzé Emmanuel

机构信息

From the Service de Neurologie (M.B., E.T.), and Service de Chirurgie Vasculaire (L.C., L.B.), CHU Côte de Nacre, Université de Caen Basse Normandie, Caen, France; Neurology Department, Hospital Santo António, Centro Hospitalar do Porto, Porto, Portugal (R.F.); Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Research Institute for Health Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand (K.R.); Stroke Prevention Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom (P.M.R.); and INSERM UMR U919, Caen, France (E.T.).

出版信息

Stroke. 2015 Oct;46(10):2843-8. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.010052. Epub 2015 Aug 18.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is associated with higher risk of periprocedural stroke and death when compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). By contrast, the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) was higher after CEA than after CAS in randomized trials. However, numbers were small, and risk factors are unknown.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of studies published from January 1980 to June 2014 and collected unpublished data. We extracted data on 9 predefined risk factors (age, contralateral carotid occlusion, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, sex, hypertension, peripheral artery disease, type stenosis, and clinical presentation). We selected studies with data available on MI in at least 1 subgroup, calculated absolute and relative risks, and identified differential effects on risks of MI.

RESULTS

The 30-day absolute risk of MI was 0.87% (95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.07) after CEA and 0.70% (95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.88) after CAS (Pint=0.38). After CAS, patients with symptomatic stenosis and restenosis were at higher risk of MI, whereas men were at lower risk. After CEA, age, history of coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, and restenosis increased the risk of MI. Only the effect of sex differed between CAS and CEA with men being at lower risk of MI than women after CAS, whereas there was no difference between after CEA (Pint=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of MI after CEA and CAS did not significantly differ. Risk factors for MI are overall similar in both techniques except that men are at lower risk of MI after CAS but not after CEA.

摘要

背景与目的

与颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)相比,颈动脉血管成形术和支架置入术(CAS)与围手术期卒中及死亡风险较高相关。相比之下,在随机试验中,CEA后心肌梗死(MI)的风险高于CAS后。然而,样本量较小,且风险因素尚不清楚。

方法

我们对1980年1月至2014年6月发表的研究进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,并收集了未发表的数据。我们提取了9个预先定义的风险因素(年龄、对侧颈动脉闭塞、冠状动脉疾病、糖尿病、性别、高血压、外周动脉疾病、狭窄类型和临床表现)的数据。我们选择了至少在1个亚组中有MI数据的研究,计算了绝对风险和相对风险,并确定了对MI风险的差异影响。

结果

CEA后30天MI的绝对风险为0.87%(95%置信区间,0.69 - 1.07),CAS后为0.70%(95%置信区间,0.54 - 0.88)(P异质性 = 0.38)。CAS后,有症状性狭窄和再狭窄的患者MI风险较高,而男性风险较低。CEA后,年龄、冠状动脉疾病史、外周动脉疾病和再狭窄会增加MI风险。CAS和CEA之间仅性别影响不同,CAS后男性MI风险低于女性,而CEA后无差异(P异质性 = 0.01)。

结论

CEA和CAS后MI的风险无显著差异。两种技术中MI的风险因素总体相似,只是CAS后男性MI风险较低,而CEA后并非如此。

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