• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

主动脉弓解剖结构的复杂性对经颈动脉血管重建术与经股动脉颈动脉支架置入术的疗效产生影响。

Complexity of Aortic Arch Anatomy Affects the Outcomes of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Versus Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting.

作者信息

Conway Allan M, Nguyen Tran Nhan T, Qato Khalil, Ehidom Clinton, Stoffels Guillaume J, Giangola Gary, Carroccio Alfio

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell Health, New York, NY.

Department of Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell Health, New York, NY.

出版信息

Ann Vasc Surg. 2020 Aug;67:78-89. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2020.04.016. Epub 2020 Apr 25.

DOI:10.1016/j.avsg.2020.04.016
PMID:32339690
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been shown to have half the rates of transient ischemic attack (TIA), stroke, and death compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). Successful outcomes of TFCAS require careful patient selection. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of TFCAS versus TCAR in both simple (type I) and complex (type II and III) aortic arches.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed comparing the outcomes of patients undergoing TFCAS versus TCAR with simple and complex aortic arches using the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from August 2011 to May 2019. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital TIA/stroke/death.

RESULTS

About 6,108 carotid artery interventions were analyzed, including 3,536 (57.9%) patients with type I, 2,013 (33.0%) with type II, and 559 (9.2%) with type III aortic arch. In 3,535 patients with a simple arch, 1,917 underwent TFCAS and 1,619 had TCAR. Mean age was 70.6 (±9.5) years, and 2,382 (67.4%) patients were males. The primary outcome of postoperative TIA/stroke/death was seen significantly less frequently in those undergoing TCAR compared with TFCAS in simple arches (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.43-0.94; P = 0.0236). Although the individual outcome of death occurred less often in TCAR (P = 0.0025), there was no difference in the occurrence of in-hospital stroke (P = 0.8836) or TIA (P = 0.4608). On multivariable analysis, TCAR was associated with improved outcomes (P = 0.0062). A worse outcome was associated with increasing age (P < 0.001), a prior stroke (P < 0.0001), and increasing number of stents (P = 0.0483). In 2,572 patients with a complex arch, 1,416 underwent TFCAS and 1,156 had TCAR. Mean age was 73.0 (±9.1) years, and 1,655 (64.4%) were males. In complex arch anatomy, the primary outcome of in-hospital TIA/stroke/death was seen significantly less frequently in TCAR compared with TFCAS (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.77; P = 0.0022). Again noted was a significant difference in death, with better outcomes in TCAR (P = 0.0133). Although the occurrence of in-hospital TIA was no different between the 2 approaches (P = 0.6158), there were significantly fewer strokes in those treated with TCAR (P = 0.0132). TCAR (P = 0.0146) was associated with improved outcomes. A worse outcome was seen with advancing age (P = 0.0003), prior strokes (P = 0.01), and a left-sided lesion (P = 0.0176).

CONCLUSIONS

TCAR has improved outcomes of TIA/stroke/death compared with TFCAS in both simple and complex aortic arch anatomy. In simple aortic arches, there is no difference in neurologic outcomes between both approaches. In complex arch anatomy, TCAR has fewer strokes.

摘要

背景

经颈动脉血管重建术(TCAR)已被证明与经股动脉颈动脉支架置入术(TFCAS)相比,短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)、中风和死亡发生率减半。TFCAS的成功结果需要仔细选择患者。本研究的目的是确定在简单(I型)和复杂(II型和III型)主动脉弓中TFCAS与TCAR的结果。

方法

进行了一项回顾性队列研究,使用2011年8月至2019年5月的血管质量倡议登记数据,比较接受TFCAS与TCAR的简单和复杂主动脉弓患者的结果。主要结局是院内TIA/中风/死亡的复合结局。

结果

共分析了约6108例颈动脉干预措施,包括3536例(57.9%)I型主动脉弓患者、2013例(33.0%)II型主动脉弓患者和559例(9.2%)III型主动脉弓患者。在3535例简单主动脉弓患者中,1917例接受了TFCAS,1619例接受了TCAR。平均年龄为70.6(±9.5)岁,2382例(67.4%)患者为男性。与简单主动脉弓中接受TFCAS的患者相比,接受TCAR的患者术后TIA/中风/死亡的主要结局明显更少(优势比[OR],0.63;95%置信区间[95%CI],0.43 - 0.94;P = 0.0236)。虽然TCAR中死亡的个体结局发生频率较低(P = 0.0025),但院内中风(P = 0.8836)或TIA(P = 0.4608)的发生率没有差异。多变量分析显示,TCAR与更好的结局相关(P = 0.0062)。年龄增加(P < 0.001)、既往中风(P < 0.0001)和支架数量增加(P = 0.0483)与更差的结局相关。在2572例复杂主动脉弓患者中,1416例接受了TFCAS,1156例接受了TCAR。平均年龄为73.0(±9.1)岁,1655例(64.4%)为男性。在复杂主动脉弓解剖结构中,与TFCAS相比,TCAR中院内TIA/中风/死亡的主要结局明显更少(OR,0.49;95%CI,0.31 - 0.77;P = 0.0022)。再次注意到死亡存在显著差异,TCAR的结局更好(P = 0.0133)。虽然两种方法之间院内TIA的发生率没有差异(P = 0.6158),但接受TCAR治疗的患者中风明显更少(P = 0.0132)。TCAR(P = 0.0146)与更好的结局相关。年龄增长(P = 0.0003)、既往中风(P = 0.01)和左侧病变(P = 0.0176)与更差的结局相关。

结论

在简单和复杂主动脉弓解剖结构中,与TFCAS相比,TCAR改善了TIA/中风/死亡的结局。在简单主动脉弓中,两种方法的神经学结局没有差异。在复杂主动脉弓解剖结构中,TCAR的中风更少。

相似文献

1
Complexity of Aortic Arch Anatomy Affects the Outcomes of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Versus Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting.主动脉弓解剖结构的复杂性对经颈动脉血管重建术与经股动脉颈动脉支架置入术的疗效产生影响。
Ann Vasc Surg. 2020 Aug;67:78-89. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2020.04.016. Epub 2020 Apr 25.
2
Transcarotid artery revascularization versus transfemoral carotid artery stenting in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative.血管外科学会血管质量倡议中的经颈动脉动脉血运重建与经股颈动脉血管成形术。
J Vasc Surg. 2019 Jan;69(1):92-103.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.05.011. Epub 2018 Jun 22.
3
The impact of age on in-hospital outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization, transfemoral carotid artery stenting, and carotid endarterectomy.年龄对经颈动脉血管重建术、经股颈动脉血管支架置入术和颈动脉内膜切除术住院治疗结果的影响。
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Sep;72(3):931-942.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.11.037. Epub 2020 Feb 5.
4
Outcomes of transfemoral carotid artery stenting and transcarotid artery revascularization for restenosis after prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy.经股动脉颈动脉支架置入术和颈动脉内膜切除术治疗同侧颈动脉再狭窄后的转颈动脉血运重建术的结果。
J Vasc Surg. 2022 Feb;75(2):561-571.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.07.245. Epub 2021 Sep 8.
5
Evaluating postoperative outcomes in patients with hostile neck anatomy undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization versus transfemoral carotid artery stenting.评估颈部解剖结构复杂的患者接受经颈动脉血管重建术与经股动脉颈动脉支架置入术的术后结局。
J Vasc Surg. 2023 Jan;77(1):191-200. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.08.030. Epub 2022 Aug 30.
6
Comparison of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization and Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting Based on High Risk Anatomic Characteristics.基于高风险解剖特征的颈动脉血运重建术与经股动脉颈动脉支架置入术的比较。
Ann Vasc Surg. 2022 Nov;87:21-30. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2022.03.034. Epub 2022 Apr 6.
7
Perioperative outcomes of carotid endarterectomy and transfemoral and transcervical carotid artery stenting in radiation-induced carotid lesions.放射性颈动脉病变行颈动脉内膜切除术、经股动脉和经颈动脉腔内治疗的围手术期结果。
J Vasc Surg. 2022 Mar;75(3):915-920. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.08.087. Epub 2021 Sep 21.
8
Carotid lesion length independently predicts stroke and death after transcarotid artery revascularization and transfemoral carotid artery stenting.颈动脉病变长度可独立预测经颈动脉血管重建术和经股颈动脉支架置入术后的中风和死亡情况。
J Vasc Surg. 2022 Dec;76(6):1615-1623.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.06.099. Epub 2022 Jul 11.
9
Seven years of the transcarotid artery revascularization surveillance project, comparison to transfemoral stenting and endarterectomy.经颈动脉血运重建监测项目七年,与经股动脉支架置入术和内膜切除术的比较。
J Vasc Surg. 2024 Nov;80(5):1455-1463. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2024.05.048. Epub 2024 May 29.
10
The role of transfemoral carotid artery stenting with proximal balloon occlusion embolic protection in the contemporary endovascular management of carotid artery stenosis.经股动脉颈动脉支架置入术联合近端球囊阻断栓塞保护在当代颈动脉狭窄血管内治疗中的作用。
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Nov;72(5):1701-1710. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.02.036. Epub 2020 Apr 3.

引用本文的文献

1
Procedure Dynamics in Transfemoral vs Transradial Cerebral Angiography: A Retrospective Study.经股动脉与经桡动脉脑血管造影的操作动态:一项回顾性研究
Med Sci Monit. 2025 Feb 19;31:e947603. doi: 10.12659/MSM.947603.
2
Use of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization, Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting, and Carotid Endarterectomy in the US From 2015 to 2019.2015 年至 2019 年美国经颈动脉血管重建术、经股颈动脉血管支架置入术和颈动脉内膜切除术的使用情况。
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Sep 1;5(9):e2231944. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.31944.
3
Outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization: A systematic review.
经颈动脉血运重建术的结果:一项系统性综述。
Interv Neuroradiol. 2024 Jun;30(3):396-403. doi: 10.1177/15910199221123283. Epub 2022 Aug 29.
4
The Predictors of Asymptomatic Cerebral Embolism After Carotid Artery Stenting.颈动脉支架置入术后无症状性脑栓塞的预测因素
Anatol J Cardiol. 2022 Jul;26(7):593-594. doi: 10.5152/AnatolJCardiol.2022.1952.
5
The Efficacy of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization With Flow Reversal System Compared to Carotid Endarterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.与颈动脉内膜切除术相比,使用血流逆转系统的经颈动脉血管重建术的疗效:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Nov 19;8:695295. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.695295. eCollection 2021.
6
Safety and efficacy of transcarotid artery revascularisation versus carotid endarterectomy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis study.经颈动脉血运重建术与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗效果与安全性的系统评价及荟萃分析研究方案
BMJ Open. 2021 May 4;11(5):e043039. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043039.