Balucani Clotilde, Arnedo Vanessa, Weedon Jeremy, Leys Didier, Mas Jean-Louis, Brown Martin, Grotta James C, Gonzales Nicole R, Hacke Werner, Brott Thomas, Levine Steven R
The Department of Neurology and Stroke Center, Downstate Medical Center, The State University of New York, SUNY, Brooklyn, New York, NY, USA.
The Department of Public Health, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, NY, USA.
Neurohospitalist. 2018 Jul;8(3):113-123. doi: 10.1177/1941874417747772. Epub 2018 Jan 17.
Management of carotid stenosis remains controversial despite several trials evaluating carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty/stenting (CAS). We compared attitudes in the management of carotid stenosis between selected experts within Europe and North America.
A 3-phase Delphi survey was e-mailed to select stroke experts from Europe (n = 390) and North America (n = 289). Those completing the initial survey were shown all responses after each survey round. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement.
For phases 1, 2, and 3, response rates were 32%, 62%, and 73%, respectively. Overall, 100 (15%) of 679 participated in all 3 phases, 19% Europeans versus 9% North Americans ( = .0007). The European group reached consensus in 6 of 15 statements; The North American group reached consensus in 4 of 15. Ninety percentage of Europeans versus 70% of North Americans ( = .017) stated CEA is superior to CAS for symptomatic carotid stenosis. This difference was not significant in the final model (adjusted odds ratio: 3.72 [95% confidence interval: 0.95-14.5]). Sixty-nine percentage of North Americans agreed there is a stronger indication for CAS over CEA in patients younger than 65 years for symptomatic carotid stenosis, whereas 55% of Europeans ( = .023) disagreed. For asymptomatic carotid stenosis, when asked how likely they would recommend CAS, 62% North Americans said "sometimes" versus 60% of Europeans said "never" ( = .06).
The majority of North American and European respondents did not consider the 2 procedures equivalent and seemed to indicate that CEA was preferred for the management of carotid stenosis. These findings need to be further explored to help establish evidence-based guidelines.
尽管有多项试验对颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)和颈动脉血管成形术/支架置入术(CAS)进行了评估,但颈动脉狭窄的管理仍存在争议。我们比较了欧洲和北美的部分专家在颈动脉狭窄管理方面的态度。
通过电子邮件向来自欧洲(n = 390)和北美(n = 289)的选定卒中专家发送了一项分三个阶段的德尔菲调查。完成初始调查的人员在每轮调查后都会看到所有回复。共识定义为≥80%的一致意见。
在第1、2和3阶段,回复率分别为32%、62%和73%。总体而言,679名参与者中有100名(15%)参与了所有三个阶段,欧洲人占19%,北美人为9%(P = 0.0007)。欧洲组在15项陈述中的6项达成了共识;北美组在15项中的4项达成了共识。90%的欧洲人认为对于有症状的颈动脉狭窄,CEA优于CAS,而70%的北美人为(P = 0.017)。在最终模型中,这种差异不显著(调整后的优势比:3.72 [95%置信区间:0.95 - 14.5])。69%的北美受访者同意,对于65岁以下有症状的颈动脉狭窄患者,CAS比CEA有更强的适应证,而55%的欧洲人(P = 0.023)不同意。对于无症状的颈动脉狭窄,当被问及他们推荐CAS的可能性时,62%的北美人称“有时”,而60%的欧洲人表示“从不”(P = 0.06)。
大多数北美和欧洲受访者认为这两种手术并不等同,似乎表明CEA更适合用于颈动脉狭窄的管理。这些发现需要进一步探讨,以帮助制定基于证据的指南。