Karpenko Andrey, Starodubtsev Vladimir, Ignatenko Pavel, Dixon Frances, Bugurov Savr, Bochkov Igor, Rabtsun Artem, Gostev Alexander, Ruzankin Pavel, Brusaynskaya Anna
Siberian Federal Biomedical Research Center, Ministry for Public Health Care of Russian Federation, Novosibirsk, Russia.
Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, UK.
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020 May;29(5):104751. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.104751. Epub 2020 Mar 9.
The objective of the study was to describe immediate and long-term results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid stenting (CAS) with embolic protection in patients with severe carotid artery stenosis in clinical practice.
This is a retrospective cohort study, conducted between 2009 and 2017. During the analyzed period, 2132 operations (2006 patients) were performed: 1215 (57%) CEA and 917 (43%) CAS. 278 patients (13.8% of 2006) were not contactable during the follow-up period (>30 days) leaving 1791 cases (1728 patients) for inclusion in the analysis. Propensity score matching was used to compare the treatment results of groups (561 cases were matched out of 1791). The results of 615 CEA (316 eversion, 299 "classic" with patch) and 615 CAS (using a variety of carotid stents) were compared.
In the asymptomatic subgroup (n = 455), the 30-day rate of stroke was not significantly different between the CEA group and the CAS group (1.5% versus 2.4%, P = .48). The 5-year rate of stroke was not significantly higher for CAS than for CEA (4.6% versus 3.3%, P = .3). In the symptomatic subgroup (n = 160), the 30-day rate of stroke was significantly higher in the CAS group than in the CEA group (7.5% versus 2.5%, P = .04). The 5-year rate of stroke was 13% for CAS and 8.7% for CEA (P = .2).
In the symptomatic subgroup, the 30-day rate of stroke was significantly higher in the CAS group than in the CEA group, therefore the use of CAS for symptomatic patients in routine practice should be limited. Our study demonstrates that the rates of stroke and survival after CEA and CAS in patients aged 80 years or younger with asymptomatic or symptomatic severe carotid stenosis did not differ significantly over a period of 5 years.
本研究的目的是描述在临床实践中,对严重颈动脉狭窄患者行颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)与有栓子保护装置的颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)的近期和长期结果。
这是一项2009年至2017年期间进行的回顾性队列研究。在分析期间,共进行了2132例手术(涉及2006例患者):1215例(57%)CEA和917例(43%)CAS。278例患者(占2006例的13.8%)在随访期(>30天)内无法联系到,剩余1791例(1728例患者)纳入分析。采用倾向评分匹配法比较两组的治疗结果(从1791例中匹配出561例)。比较了615例CEA(316例外翻式,299例“经典”带补片式)和615例CAS(使用多种颈动脉支架)的结果。
在无症状亚组(n = 455)中,CEA组和CAS组的30天卒中发生率无显著差异(1.5%对2.4%,P = 0.48)。CAS组的5年卒中发生率并不显著高于CEA组(4.6%对3.3%,P = 0.3)。在有症状亚组(n = 160)中,CAS组的30天卒中发生率显著高于CEA组(7.5%对2.5%,P = 0.04)。CAS组的5年卒中发生率为13%,CEA组为8.7%(P = 0.2)。
在有症状亚组中,CAS组的30天卒中发生率显著高于CEA组,因此在常规实践中,有症状患者使用CAS应受到限制。我们的研究表明,年龄在80岁及以下的无症状或有症状严重颈动脉狭窄患者,CEA和CAS术后5年内的卒中和生存率无显著差异。