Suppr超能文献

多中心国家数据库中颈动脉血运重建术后中期高级别再狭窄的预测因素。

Predictors of midterm high-grade restenosis after carotid revascularization in a multicenter national database.

机构信息

Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, Calif.

Section of Vascular Surgery and The Dartmouth Institute, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH.

出版信息

J Vasc Surg. 2020 Jun;71(6):1972-1981. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.07.100. Epub 2020 Feb 19.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Restenosis after carotid revascularization is clinically challenging. Several studies have looked into the management of recurrent restenosis; however, studies looking into factors associated with restenosis are limited. This study evaluated the predictors of restenosis after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) using a large national database.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CEA or CAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative data set (2003-2016) were analyzed. Patients with no follow-up (33%) and those who had prior ipsilateral CEA or CAS were excluded. Significant restenosis was defined as ≥70% diameter-reducing stenosis, target artery occlusion or peak systolic velocity ≥300 cm/s, or repeated revascularization. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and bootstrapped Cox regression models with stepwise forward and backward selection were used.

RESULTS

A total of 35,720 procedures were included (CEA, 31,329; CAS, 4391). No significant difference in restenosis rates was seen between CEA and CAS at 2 years (7.7% vs 9.4% [P = .09]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.25; P = .97). However, after adjustment for age, sex, and symptomatic status at the time of the index operation, CAS patients who had postoperative restenosis were more likely to have a symptomatic presentation (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-4.0; P = .01) and to undergo repeated revascularization at 2 years (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.3-2.4; P < .001) compared with patients who had restenosis after CEA. Predictors of restenosis after CAS included a common carotid artery lesion (HR, 1.65; 95% CI,1.06-2.57; P = .03), whereas age (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99; P = .03) and dilation after stent placement (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39-0.72; P < .001) were associated with decreased restenosis at 2 years. Predictors of restenosis after CEA included female sex (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.38-1.74; P < .001), prior neck irradiation (HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.66-3.30; P < .001), and prior bypass surgery (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01-1.65; P = .04). On the other hand, factors associated with decreased restenosis after CEA included age (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.98; P < .001), black race (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37-0.89; P = .01), patching (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.79; P < .001), and completion imaging (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.95; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show no significant difference in restenosis rates at 2 years between CEA and CAS. Restenosis after CAS is more likely to be manifested with symptoms and to undergo repeated revascularization compared with that after CEA. Poststent ballooning after CAS and completion imaging and patching after CEA are associated with decreased hazard of restenosis; however, further research is needed to assess longer term outcomes and to balance the risks vs benefits of certain practices, such as poststent ballooning.

摘要

背景

颈动脉血运重建后再狭窄是临床上的一个挑战。已有多项研究探讨了复发性再狭窄的处理方法,但与再狭窄相关因素的研究有限。本研究利用大型国家数据库评估了颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)和颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)后再狭窄的预测因素。

方法

分析了血管质量倡议数据集中(2003-2016 年)接受 CEA 或 CAS 的患者。排除无随访(33%)和同侧 CEA 或 CAS 史的患者。显著再狭窄定义为≥70%直径狭窄、靶血管闭塞或收缩期峰值速度≥300cm/s,或重复血运重建。采用 Kaplan-Meier 生存分析和 bootstrap 逐步向前和向后选择 Cox 回归模型。

结果

共纳入 35720 例手术(CEA 31329 例,CAS 4391 例)。2 年时 CEA 和 CAS 之间的再狭窄率无显著差异(7.7%比 9.4%[P=0.09];风险比[HR],0.99;95%置信区间[CI],0.79-1.25;P=0.97)。然而,在校正指数操作时的年龄、性别和症状状态后,CAS 术后再狭窄的患者更有可能出现症状表现(比值比,2.2;95%CI,1.2-4.0;P=0.01),并且在 2 年内再次接受血运重建的可能性更高(HR,1.75;95%CI,1.3-2.4;P<0.001),与 CEA 术后再狭窄的患者相比。CAS 后再狭窄的预测因素包括颈总动脉病变(HR,1.65;95%CI,1.06-2.57;P=0.03),而年龄(HR,0.91;95%CI,0.84-0.99;P=0.03)和支架置入后的扩张(HR,0.53;95%CI,0.39-0.72;P<0.001)与 2 年内再狭窄减少相关。CEA 后再狭窄的预测因素包括女性(HR,1.55;95%CI,1.38-1.74;P<0.001)、颈部放疗史(HR,2.35;95%CI,1.66-3.30;P<0.001)和旁路手术史(HR,1.29;95%CI,1.01-1.65;P=0.04)。另一方面,与 CEA 后再狭窄减少相关的因素包括年龄(HR,0.95;95%CI,0.92-0.98;P<0.001)、黑种人(HR,0.57;95%CI,0.37-0.89;P=0.01)、补片(HR,0.61;95%CI,0.47-0.79;P<0.001)和完成影像学检查(HR,0.70;95%CI,0.52-0.95;P=0.02)。

结论

我们的结果显示,2 年内 CEA 和 CAS 的再狭窄率无显著差异。与 CEA 后再狭窄相比,CAS 后再狭窄更有可能出现症状,并再次接受血运重建。CAS 后支架内球囊扩张和 CEA 后完成影像学检查和补片与再狭窄风险降低相关;然而,需要进一步研究以评估更长期的结果,并平衡某些实践(如支架内球囊扩张)的风险与获益。

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