Lee Jayoun, You Ji Hye, Oh Sung-Hee, Shin Sangjin, Kim Byung Moon, Kim Tae-Sun, Cho Yong-Pil, Jeon Pyoung, Park Hyeonseon
Division for Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, South Korea.
Department of Radiology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2019 Jan;54:185-192.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2018.04.044. Epub 2018 Aug 6.
The present multicenter retrospective study aimed to compare the outcome of carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) among Korean patients with symptomatic extracranial carotid stenosis.
Between January 2008 and December 2011, 677 patients underwent either CAS (346, 51.1%) or CEA (331, 48.9%). The primary end point included the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), defined as fatal or nonfatal stroke and myocardial infarction, and all-cause mortality during the periprocedural period and within 4 years after CAS or CEA.
Although patients undergoing CAS and CEA did not differ significantly in MACE incidence within 4 years (15.3% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.14), CEA showed lower periprocedural MACE incidence than CAS with clinical significance (6.1% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.06). During the periprocedural period, the incidence of any stroke was significantly higher in patients undergoing CAS (5.5% vs. 2.4%, P = 0.04) but not the incidence of myocardial infarction (0.6% vs. 0.3%, P > 0.99). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed similar MACE-free (P = 0.16), stroke-free (P = 0.24), and overall survival (P = 0.25) rates in both groups. On subgroup analysis, patients older than 70 years undergoing CAS had a significantly higher incidence of MACE at 4 years (22.7% vs. 13.7%, P = 0.03).
Although the risk of MACE did not differ significantly within 4 years in this Korean population undergoing CAS and CEA, there was a higher risk of stroke with CAS during the periprocedural period.
本多中心回顾性研究旨在比较韩国有症状颅外颈动脉狭窄患者行颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)与颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)的结果。
在2008年1月至2011年12月期间,677例患者接受了CAS(346例,51.1%)或CEA(331例,48.9%)。主要终点包括主要不良心血管事件(MACE)的发生,定义为致命或非致命性卒中及心肌梗死,以及CAS或CEA围手术期及术后4年内的全因死亡率。
尽管接受CAS和CEA的患者在4年内MACE发生率无显著差异(15.3%对11.5%,P = 0.14),但CEA围手术期MACE发生率低于CAS,具有临床意义(6.1%对3.0%,P = 0.06)。在围手术期,接受CAS的患者任何卒中的发生率显著更高(5.5%对2.4%,P = 0.04),但心肌梗死的发生率无差异(0.6%对0.3%,P > 0.99)。Kaplan-Meier生存分析显示两组的无MACE生存率(P = 0.16)、无卒中生存率(P = 0.24)和总生存率(P = 0.25)相似。亚组分析显示,70岁以上接受CAS的患者4年内MACE发生率显著更高(22.7%对13.7%,P = 0.03)。
尽管在韩国接受CAS和CEA的人群中4年内MACE风险无显著差异,但CAS在围手术期卒中风险更高。