Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2017 Oct;21(57):1-40. doi: 10.3310/hta21570.
A successful open surgical operation to remove atheromatous carotid artery narrowing that has not yet caused a stroke (asymptomatic carotid stenosis) carries some procedural risk but, if completed successfully, halves patients' future annual stroke risk for at least 10 years. A newer, less invasive alternative is carotid stenting, which also carries some procedural risk, especially if the carotid lesion has recently given rise to a stroke (symptomatic carotid stenosis). For both surgery and stenting, improvements in technique (and in medication) have reduced risk. Early studies showed that treating carotid narrowing by stenting, particularly for symptomatic lesions, caused more procedural minor strokes than surgery, but more recent trials in symptomatic and in asymptomatic patients found that both procedures might now be equally safe and effective. However, low patient numbers, short follow-up of the long-term effects on stroke rates and wide confidence intervals mean that worldwide uncertainty persists between carotid surgery and carotid stenting, and national and international guidelines remain unclear as to which is generally better.
The second Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST-2) compares carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with carotid artery stenting (CAS) directly, randomising patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis for whom a carotid procedure is considered definitely necessary; both procedures seem anatomically feasible, and there is substantial uncertainty as to which of the two would be better for such individuals. Although it will compare procedural risks, the trial's primary aim is to compare the long-term durability of protection against strokes occurring in the years post procedure due to any remaining or recurrent carotid disease.
Randomised controlled trial comparing CEA with CAS.
Hospitals in the UK and worldwide, in which carotid procedures are common.
Men and women with severely stenotic atherosclerotic carotid artery disease, with or without previous stroke but with no recent symptoms from the randomised artery.
CEA and CAS.
(1) Periprocedural risk defined as myocardial infarction, stroke or death within 30 days after the randomised procedure and (2) long-term rates of disabling or fatal stroke during follow-up of patients.
Measurement of intervention costs and stroke costs (periprocedural and during follow-up) and of quality of life [EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D)] for patients in the top six recruiting countries (UK, Italy, Belgium, Germany, Serbia and Sweden), who currently constitute 85% of those randomised.
By the end of March 2016, ACST-2 had included 2125 patients, nearly two-thirds of the planned recruitment of 3600; 1061 were randomly allocated to CEA and 1064 to CAS.
Further funding has been secured and recruitment continues, with completion anticipated by the end of 2019. ACST-2 will report initial results in 2021.
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21144362.
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 21, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also received from BUPA Foundation [BUPAF/33(a)/05].
对于尚未导致中风的动脉粥样硬化颈动脉狭窄(无症状性颈动脉狭窄)进行成功的开放式手术切除会带来一些手术风险,但如果手术成功,患者未来 10 年内每年中风的风险将减半。一种更新、侵入性较小的替代方法是颈动脉支架置入术,它也有一些手术风险,尤其是当颈动脉病变最近导致中风(症状性颈动脉狭窄)时。对于手术和支架置入术,技术(和药物治疗)的改进降低了风险。早期研究表明,通过支架置入术治疗颈动脉狭窄,特别是对于症状性病变,比手术导致更多的手术性轻度中风,但最近在症状性和无症状性患者中的试验发现,这两种手术现在可能同样安全有效。然而,患者数量较少,对中风发生率的长期影响的随访时间短,以及置信区间较宽,这意味着全球范围内在颈动脉手术和颈动脉支架置入术之间仍然存在不确定性,国家和国际指南仍然不清楚哪种方法总体上更好。
第二次无症状性颈动脉手术试验(ACST-2)直接比较颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)和颈动脉支架置入术(CAS),随机分配有症状性颈动脉狭窄的患者,这些患者认为颈动脉手术是绝对必要的;两种手术似乎在解剖学上都是可行的,对于这种情况,哪种手术方法更好存在很大的不确定性。尽管它将比较手术风险,但试验的主要目的是比较由于任何残留或复发的颈动脉疾病而导致的术后多年内发生中风的长期保护效果的持久性。
随机对照试验比较 CEA 和 CAS。
英国和全球范围内经常进行颈动脉手术的医院。
患有严重狭窄性动脉粥样硬化性颈动脉疾病的男性和女性,有或没有先前的中风,但随机动脉没有近期症状。
CEA 和 CAS。
(1)围手术期风险定义为随机手术后 30 天内发生心肌梗死、中风或死亡,以及(2)在患者随访期间发生致残性或致死性中风的长期风险。
测量干预成本和中风成本(围手术期和随访期间)以及六个主要招募国家(英国、意大利、比利时、德国、塞尔维亚和瑞典)的患者的生活质量[EuroQol-5 维度(EQ-5D)],目前这些国家占随机分配患者的 85%。
截至 2016 年 3 月底,ACST-2 已纳入 2125 名患者,接近计划招募的 3600 名患者的三分之二;1061 名患者被随机分配至 CEA 组,1064 名患者被随机分配至 CAS 组。
进一步获得了资金,并继续招募患者,预计将于 2019 年底完成。ACST-2 将在 2021 年报告初步结果。
当前对照试验 ISRCTN87273668。
本项目由英国国家卫生研究院(NIHR)卫生技术评估计划资助,将在 中全文发表;第 21 卷,第 57 期。请访问 NIHR 期刊库网站以获取更多项目信息。该项目还得到了 BUPA 基金会[BUPAF/33(a)/05]的资助。