Suppr超能文献

颈动脉近闭塞患者行颈动脉支架置入术和颈动脉内膜切除术的围手术期及随访结果

Perioperative and Follow-up Results of Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy in Patients with Carotid Near-Occlusion.

作者信息

Yan Dong, Tang Xiao, Shi Zhenyu, Wang Lixin, Lin Changpo, Guo Daqiao, Fu Weiguo

机构信息

Department of Vascular Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, and Vascular Center of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

Institute of Vascular Surgery, Department of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

出版信息

Ann Vasc Surg. 2019 Aug;59:21-27. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2019.01.019. Epub 2019 Apr 19.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The aim was to compare perioperative and follow-up results of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with carotid near-occlusion (NO).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted from January 2012 to June 2017 on consecutive patients with NO in our center. Perioperative complications, recurrence rate of ischemic stroke, restenosis rate, and mortality in follow-up were compared between the CAS group and CEA group.

RESULTS

92 patients (CAS group, 54 and CEA group, 38) were identified. Perioperative (30-day) results were as follows: the rate of new lesions on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was higher in the CAS group (n = 31, 57.4%) than in the CEA group (n = 13, 34.2%) (P = 0.03); no differences were found in ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), cardiac infarction, and death rate between the two groups. Results from follow-up with a mean period of 28.3 (range from 3 to 60) months were as follows: the restenosis rate was lower in the CAS group (n = 1, 1.8%) than the CEA group (n = 4, 10.5%) (P = 0.04); no differences were found in ischemic stroke, TIA, and the death rate between the two groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the five-year survival rate was 85.8% of the CAS group and 82.7% of the CEA group (P = 0.61); the five-year rate of freedom from target-lesion restenosis was 93.3% of the CAS group and 80.4% of the CEA group (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Both CAS and CEA can be used for carotid NO with the same rate of TIA/stroke and long-term survival. The rate of new lesions on DWI after CAS was higher than that in CEA in the perioperative period. CAS had a lower restenosis rate than CEA in follow-up, which might be more beneficial for remodeling of the distal internal carotid artery.

摘要

背景

目的是比较颈动脉近闭塞(NO)患者行颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)和颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)的围手术期及随访结果。

方法

对2012年1月至2017年6月在本中心连续收治的NO患者进行回顾性分析。比较CAS组和CEA组的围手术期并发症、缺血性卒中复发率、再狭窄率及随访期间的死亡率。

结果

共纳入92例患者(CAS组54例,CEA组38例)。围手术期(30天)结果如下:CAS组扩散加权成像(DWI)上新发病变率(n = 31,57.4%)高于CEA组(n = 13,34.2%)(P = 0.03);两组在缺血性卒中、短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)、心肌梗死及死亡率方面无差异。平均随访28.3(3至60)个月的结果如下:CAS组再狭窄率(n = 1,1.8%)低于CEA组(n = 4,10.5%)(P = 0.04);两组在缺血性卒中、TIA及死亡率方面无差异。Kaplan-Meier生存曲线显示,CAS组五年生存率为85.8%,CEA组为82.7%(P = 0.61);CAS组五年无靶病变再狭窄率为93.3%,CEA组为80.4%(P = 0.02)。

结论

CAS和CEA均可用于治疗颈动脉NO,TIA/卒中发生率及长期生存率相同。围手术期CAS术后DWI上新发病变率高于CEA。随访中CAS的再狭窄率低于CEA这可能对颈内动脉远端重塑更有益。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验