Suppr超能文献

颈动脉支架置入术:有保护装置与无保护装置的比较——当前文献的荟萃分析

Protected versus Unprotected Carotid Artery Stenting : Meta-Analysis of the Current Literature.

作者信息

Cho Young Dae, Kim Sung-Eun, Lim Jeong Wook, Choi Hyuk Jai, Cho Yong Jun, Jeon Jin Pyeong

机构信息

Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul Emergency Operations Center, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2018 Jul;61(4):458-466. doi: 10.3340/jkns.2017.0202.001. Epub 2018 Apr 10.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare peri-operative any symptomatic stroke after carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), based on the application or absence of a cerebral protection device.

METHODS

A systematic literature review using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central was done across an online data base from January 1995 to October 2016. Procedures which were performed due to carotid dissection or aneurysm, procedures using covered stents or conducted in an emergency, were excluded. The primary endpoint was perioperative any symptomatic stroke within 30 days after the procedure. A fixed effect model was used in cases of heterogeneity less than 50%.

RESULTS

In the 25 articles included in this study, the number of stroke events was 326 (2.0%) in protected CAS and 142 (3.4%) in unprotected CAS. The use of cerebral protection device significantly decreased stroke after CAS (odds ratio [OR] 0.633, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.479-0.837, p=0.001). In the publication bias analysis, Egger's regression test disclosed that the intercept was -0.317 (95% CI -1.015-0.382, p=0.358). Regarding symptomatic patients (four studies, 539 CAS procedures), the number of stroke was six (1.7%) in protected CAS and 11 (5.7%) in unprotected CAS. The protective effect against stroke events by cerebral protection device did not have a statistical significance (OR 0.455, 95% CI 0.151-1.366, p=0.160).

CONCLUSION

The use of protection device significantly decreased stroke after CAS. However, its efficacy was not demonstrated in symptomatic patients. Routine use of protection device during CAS should be critically assessed before mandatory use.

摘要

目的

基于是否应用脑保护装置,比较颈动脉血管成形术和支架置入术(CAS)围手术期任何有症状性卒中的发生情况。

方法

利用PubMed、Embase和Cochrane中心数据库,对1995年1月至2016年10月的在线数据库进行系统文献回顾。排除因颈动脉夹层或动脉瘤进行的手术、使用覆膜支架的手术或急诊手术。主要终点是术后30天内围手术期任何有症状性卒中。异质性小于50%的情况采用固定效应模型。

结果

本研究纳入的25篇文章中,使用脑保护装置的CAS组卒中事件数为326例(2.0%),未使用脑保护装置的CAS组为142例(3.4%)。使用脑保护装置显著降低了CAS术后的卒中发生率(优势比[OR]0.633,95%置信区间[CI]0.479 - 0.837,p = 0.001)。在发表偏倚分析中,Egger回归检验显示截距为-0.317(95%CI -1.015 - 0.382,p = 0.358)。对于有症状患者(4项研究,539例CAS手术),使用脑保护装置的CAS组卒中数为6例(1.7%),未使用脑保护装置的CAS组为11例(5.7%)。脑保护装置对卒中事件的保护作用无统计学意义(OR 0.455,95%CI 0.151 - 1.366,p = 0.160)。

结论

使用保护装置显著降低了CAS术后的卒中发生率。然而,在有症状患者中其疗效未得到证实。在强制使用之前,应严格评估CAS期间常规使用保护装置的情况。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/37e6/6046577/288592985aa2/jkns-2017-0202-001f1.jpg

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