Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pa.
Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pa.
J Vasc Surg. 2018 Oct;68(4):1039-1046. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.12.067. Epub 2018 Mar 31.
Carotid interventional trials have strict inclusion and exclusion criteria that make translation of their results to the real-world population challenging. Furthermore, the specialty of the operating surgeon and the role of clinical decision-making are not well studied. This study compares the effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs carotid artery stenting (CAS) in a real-world setting when the procedure is performed by fellowship-trained vascular surgeons.
A retrospective study was conducted of all consecutive patients undergoing CEA and CAS performed by vascular surgeons in a large rural tertiary health care system from 2004 to 2014. Postoperative outcomes of stroke, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and death were analyzed at 30 days and during the long term (median follow-up of 5.5 years for CEA and 4.8 years for CAS). Standard statistical analysis was performed. Differences in long-term outcomes were expressed as cumulative incidence functions for nondeath outcomes (stroke and AMI), which account for the high death rate in this population of vascular patients, and as Kaplan-Meier curves for death itself.
From January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2014, there were 2331 carotid interventions performed (CEA, 1853; CAS, 478), all by fellowship-trained vascular surgeons. The average age of the patients was 71 years, and 63% were male, with more men in the CAS group (61.5% vs 67.8%; P = .011). Preoperatively, 30% of patients were symptomatic, and 77% of patients had high-grade stenosis in the 70% to 99% range. CEA patients were more likely to have preoperative hypertension (89.7% vs 86.2%; P = .029) and were less likely to have a history of cardiovascular disease (53.4% vs 59.4%; P = .018). There were no significant differences in 30-day outcomes between CEA and CAS (stroke, 1.1% vs 1.3% [P = .743]; AMI, 2.2% vs 1.7% [P = .474]; death, 0.7% vs 0.6% [P = .859]) or long-term outcomes (stroke, 6.8% vs 7.7% [P = .321]; AMI, 22.7% vs 21.0% [P = .886]; death, 28.4% vs 28.2% [P = .122]).
The short- and long-term outcomes after CEA vs CAS are similar when the procedure is performed in a real-world setting by fellowship-trained vascular surgeons.
颈动脉介入试验有严格的纳入和排除标准,这使得将其结果转化为真实人群具有挑战性。此外,手术医生的专业水平和临床决策的作用也没有得到很好的研究。本研究比较了在由经过专业培训的血管外科医生进行手术的真实环境中,颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)与颈动脉血管成形术和支架置入术(CAS)的效果。
对 2004 年至 2014 年间在一个大型农村三级医疗保健系统中由血管外科医生进行的连续 CEA 和 CAS 患者进行回顾性研究。术后 30 天和长期(CEA 的中位随访时间为 5.5 年,CAS 为 4.8 年)分析中风、急性心肌梗死(AMI)和死亡的术后结果。进行了标准的统计分析。对于非死亡结局(中风和 AMI),采用累积发生率函数表示长期结局的差异,因为该血管患者人群的死亡率较高,而对于死亡本身,则采用 Kaplan-Meier 曲线表示。
2004 年 1 月 1 日至 2014 年 12 月 31 日,共进行了 2331 例颈动脉介入治疗(CEA 1853 例,CAS 478 例),均由经过专业培训的血管外科医生进行。患者的平均年龄为 71 岁,63%为男性,CAS 组的男性更多(61.5%比 67.8%;P=0.011)。术前,30%的患者有症状,77%的患者狭窄程度在 70%至 99%之间。CEA 患者更有可能患有术前高血压(89.7%比 86.2%;P=0.029),而患有心血管疾病病史的可能性较小(53.4%比 59.4%;P=0.018)。CEA 和 CAS 之间在 30 天的结局(中风 1.1%比 1.3%[P=0.743];AMI 2.2%比 1.7%[P=0.474];死亡 0.7%比 0.6%[P=0.859])或长期结局(中风 6.8%比 7.7%[P=0.321];AMI 22.7%比 21.0%[P=0.886];死亡 28.4%比 28.2%[P=0.122])均无显著差异。
在由经过专业培训的血管外科医生在真实环境中进行手术时,CEA 与 CAS 的短期和长期结局相似。