Hussain Mohamad A, Bin-Ayeed Saad A, Saeed Omar Q, Verma Subodh, Al-Omran Mohammed
Division of Vascular Surgery, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Vascular Surgery Department, King Salman Heart Center, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
J Vasc Surg. 2016 Apr;63(4):1099-107.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2015.12.041.
Diabetes has been suggested as a marker of higher operative risk during carotid artery revascularization. The aim of this study was to summarize the current evidence comparing the effectiveness of carotid revascularization in diabetic vs nondiabetic patients.
We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases (1946 to January 2015) for all studies comparing the clinical outcomes of diabetic vs nondiabetic patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two authors independently reviewed the studies for inclusion and quality and extracted the data. A third author validated study selection and data extraction. We calculated treatment effects as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We quantified heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. All pooled analyses were based on random-effects models. The predefined review protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015015873).
Of the 1241 abstracts screened, we included 14 observational studies involving 16,264 patients. There was excellent agreement in study selection between the two reviewers (κ statistic, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94). CEA was used in 10 studies, CAS was used in 3 studies, and both CEA and CAS were used in 1 study. All included studies were published after 1984, and 93% were published after 1997. Carotid revascularization in diabetic patients was associated with a higher risk of the following outcomes: perioperative stroke (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02-1.88; P = .04; I(2) =13%), death (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.36-2.75; P = .0002; I(2) = 0%), composite risk of stroke or death (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.32-2.47; P = .0002; I(2) = 26%), and long-term risk of death (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.22-2.03; P = .0005; I(2) = 0%). No association was found between diabetes and perioperative risk of myocardial infarction (MI); composite risk of MI, stroke, or death; and long-term risk of stroke. Study quality was limited by selection bias, minimal control for confounders, and single-center retrospective design. Sensitivity analyses excluding low-quality studies did not change the effect of diabetes on the risk of stroke, death, or MI.
Diabetic patients are at an increased risk of perioperative stroke, death, and long-term mortality compared with nondiabetic patients who undergo carotid artery revascularization. This knowledge can help further risk stratify patients with carotid artery stenosis before treatment. Future studies should focus on evaluating which mode of revascularization (CEA or CAS) is more effective in diabetic patients with carotid artery stenosis.
糖尿病被认为是颈动脉血运重建术手术风险较高的一个指标。本研究的目的是总结目前比较糖尿病患者与非糖尿病患者颈动脉血运重建术有效性的证据。
我们按照系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,对MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库(1946年至2015年1月)进行了系统检索,以查找所有比较接受颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)或颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)的糖尿病患者与非糖尿病患者临床结局的研究。两位作者独立审查研究以确定纳入情况和质量,并提取数据。第三位作者验证研究选择和数据提取。我们将治疗效果计算为比值比(OR)和95%置信区间(CI)。我们使用I²统计量对异质性进行量化。所有汇总分析均基于随机效应模型。预定义的综述方案已在国际前瞻性系统评价注册库(PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015015873)注册。
在筛选的1241篇摘要中,我们纳入了14项观察性研究,涉及16264例患者。两位审查者在研究选择上具有高度一致性(κ统计量,0.83;95%CI,0.72 - 0.94)。10项研究使用了CEA,3项研究使用了CAS,1项研究同时使用了CEA和CAS。所有纳入研究均发表于1984年之后,93%发表于1997年之后。糖尿病患者进行颈动脉血运重建术与以下结局风险较高相关:围手术期卒中(OR,1.38;95%CI,1.02 - 1.88;P = 0.04;I² = 13%)、死亡(OR,1.94;95%CI,1.36 - 2.75;P = 0.0002;I² = 0%)、卒中或死亡的复合风险(OR,1.80;95%CI,1.32 - 2.47;P = 0.0002;I² = 26%)以及长期死亡风险(OR,1.57;95%CI,1.22 - 2.03;P = 0.0005;I² = 0%)。未发现糖尿病与围手术期心肌梗死(MI)风险、MI、卒中或死亡的复合风险以及长期卒中风险之间存在关联。研究质量受到选择偏倚、对混杂因素控制不足以及单中心回顾性设计的限制。排除低质量研究的敏感性分析并未改变糖尿病对卒中、死亡或MI风险的影响。
与接受颈动脉血运重建术的非糖尿病患者相比,糖尿病患者围手术期卒中、死亡和长期死亡率的风险增加。这一认识有助于在治疗前对颈动脉狭窄患者进行进一步的风险分层。未来的研究应侧重于评估哪种血运重建方式(CEA或CAS)对糖尿病颈动脉狭窄患者更有效。