• 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

颈动脉内膜切除术与无症状颈动脉狭窄患者初始药物治疗的疗效比较。

Comparative Effectiveness of Carotid Endarterectomy vs Initial Medical Therapy in Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis.

机构信息

Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco.

San Francisco Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, San Francisco, California.

出版信息

JAMA Neurol. 2020 Sep 1;77(9):1110-1121. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.1427.

DOI:10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.1427
PMID:32478802
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7265126/
Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) among asymptomatic patients involves a trade-off between a higher short-term perioperative risk in exchange for a lower long-term risk of stroke. The clinical benefit observed in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) may not extend to real-world practice.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether early intervention (CEA) was superior to initial medical therapy in real-world practice in preventing fatal and nonfatal strokes among patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness study was conducted from August 28, 2018, to March 2, 2020, using the Corporate Data Warehouse, Suicide Data Repository, and other databases of the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Data analyzed were those of veterans of the US Armed Forces aged 65 years or older who received carotid imaging between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2009. Patients without a carotid imaging report, those with carotid stenosis of less than 50% or hemodynamically insignificant stenosis, and those with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack in the 6 months before index imaging were excluded. A cohort of patients who received initial medical therapy and a cohort of similar patients who received CEA were constructed and followed up for 5 years. The target trial method was used to compute weighted Kaplan-Meier curves and estimate the risk of fatal and nonfatal strokes in each cohort in the pragmatic sample across 5 years of follow-up. This analysis was repeated after restricting the sample to patients who met RCT inclusion criteria. Cumulative incidence functions for fatal and nonfatal strokes were estimated, accounting for nonstroke deaths as competing risks in both the pragmatic and RCT-like samples.

EXPOSURES

Receipt of CEA vs initial medical therapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Fatal and nonfatal strokes.

RESULTS

Of the total 5221 patients, 2712 (51.9%; mean [SD] age, 73.6 [6.0] years; 2678 men [98.8%]) received CEA and 2509 (48.1%; mean [SD] age, 73.6 [6.0] years; 2479 men [98.8%]) received initial medical therapy within 1 year after the index carotid imaging. The observed rate of stroke or death (perioperative complications) within 30 days in the CEA cohort was 2.5% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.1%). The 5-year risk of fatal and nonfatal strokes was lower among patients randomized to CEA compared with patients randomized to initial medical therapy (5.6% vs 7.8%; risk difference, -2.3%; 95% CI, -4.0% to -0.3%). In an analysis that incorporated the competing risk of death, the risk difference between the 2 cohorts was lower and not statistically significant (risk difference, -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 0.5%). Among patients who met RCT inclusion criteria, the 5-year risk of fatal and nonfatal strokes was 5.5% (95% CI, 4.5%-6.5%) among patients randomized to CEA and was 7.6% (95% CI, 5.7%-9.5%) among those randomized to initial medical therapy (risk difference, -2.1%; 95% CI, -4.4% to -0.2%). Accounting for competing risks resulted in a risk difference of -0.9% (95% CI, -2.9% to 0.7%) that was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that the absolute reduction in the risk of fatal and nonfatal strokes associated with early CEA was less than half the risk difference in trials from 20 years ago and was no longer statistically significant when the competing risk of nonstroke deaths was accounted for in the analysis. Given the nonnegligible perioperative 30-day risks and the improvements in stroke prevention, medical therapy may be an acceptable therapeutic strategy.

摘要

重要性

在无症状患者中,颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)涉及到短期围手术期风险较高与长期中风风险较低之间的权衡。随机临床试验(RCT)中观察到的临床获益可能不适用于真实世界的实践。

目的

研究在真实世界实践中,早期干预(CEA)是否优于初始药物治疗,以预防无症状颈动脉狭窄患者的致命性和非致命性中风。

设计、设置和参与者:本比较有效性研究于 2018 年 8 月 28 日至 2020 年 3 月 2 日期间使用美国退伍军人事务部的企业数据仓库、自杀数据存储库和其他数据库进行。分析的数据来自年龄在 65 岁或以上的美国武装部队退伍军人,他们在 2005 年 1 月 1 日至 2009 年 12 月 31 日期间接受了颈动脉成像。排除了没有颈动脉成像报告的患者、颈动脉狭窄小于 50%或血流动力学意义不大的狭窄患者,以及在指数成像前 6 个月内发生中风或短暂性脑缺血发作的患者。构建了一组接受初始药物治疗的患者队列和一组接受 CEA 的类似患者队列,并对其进行了 5 年的随访。使用目标试验方法计算加权 Kaplan-Meier 曲线,并估计在 5 年随访期间实用样本中每个队列致命性和非致命性中风的风险。在将样本限制为符合 RCT 纳入标准的患者后,重复了该分析。估计了致命性和非致命性中风的累积发生率函数,在实用和 RCT 样本人群中,将非中风死亡作为竞争风险进行了考虑。

暴露

接受 CEA 与初始药物治疗。

主要结果和措施

致命性和非致命性中风。

结果

在总共 5221 名患者中,2712 名(51.9%;平均[标准差]年龄,73.6[6.0]岁;2678 名男性[98.8%])接受了 CEA,2509 名(48.1%;平均[标准差]年龄,73.6[6.0]岁;2479 名男性[98.8%])在指数颈动脉成像后 1 年内接受了初始药物治疗。CEA 队列中 30 天内中风或死亡(围手术期并发症)的观察发生率为 2.5%(95%CI,2.0%-3.1%)。与随机接受初始药物治疗的患者相比,随机接受 CEA 治疗的患者 5 年内致命性和非致命性中风的风险较低(5.6% vs 7.8%;风险差异,-2.3%;95%CI,-4.0%至-0.3%)。在纳入竞争风险的分析中,两个队列之间的风险差异较低且无统计学意义(风险差异,-0.8%;95%CI,-2.1%至 0.5%)。在符合 RCT 纳入标准的患者中,随机接受 CEA 治疗的患者 5 年内致命性和非致命性中风的风险为 5.5%(95%CI,4.5%-6.5%),随机接受初始药物治疗的患者为 7.6%(95%CI,5.7%-9.5%)(风险差异,-2.1%;95%CI,-4.4%至-0.2%)。考虑到竞争风险,风险差异为-0.9%(95%CI,-2.9%至 0.7%),无统计学意义。

结论和相关性

本研究发现,与 20 年前的试验相比,早期 CEA 相关的致命性和非致命性中风风险降低幅度不到一半,并且在分析中考虑到非中风死亡的竞争风险时,该风险差异不再具有统计学意义。鉴于围手术期 30 天内不可忽视的风险和中风预防的改善,药物治疗可能是一种可接受的治疗策略。

相似文献

1
Comparative Effectiveness of Carotid Endarterectomy vs Initial Medical Therapy in Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis.颈动脉内膜切除术与无症状颈动脉狭窄患者初始药物治疗的疗效比较。
JAMA Neurol. 2020 Sep 1;77(9):1110-1121. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.1427.
2
Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms: randomised controlled trial.在近期无神经系统症状的患者中,通过成功实施颈动脉内膜切除术预防致残性和致命性中风:随机对照试验。
Lancet. 2004 May 8;363(9420):1491-502. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16146-1.
3
10-year stroke prevention after successful carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic stenosis (ACST-1): a multicentre randomised trial.成功颈动脉内膜切除术治疗无症状狭窄后 10 年的卒中预防(ACST-1):一项多中心随机试验。
Lancet. 2010 Sep 25;376(9746):1074-84. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61197-X.
4
Comparative Effectiveness of Carotid Stenting to Medical Therapy Among Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis.无症状性颈动脉狭窄患者中颈动脉支架置入术与药物治疗的比较疗效
Stroke. 2022 Apr;53(4):1157-1166. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.036178. Epub 2022 Feb 15.
5
Carotid angioplasty with stenting versus endarterectomy: 10-year randomized trial in a community hospital.颈动脉血管成形术和支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术的比较:社区医院的 10 年随机试验。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Feb;7(2):163-168. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.09.010.
6
Carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis in the very elderly.高龄患者无症状性颈动脉狭窄的颈动脉内膜切除术
J Vasc Surg. 2015 Feb;61(2):382-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.07.090. Epub 2014 Aug 28.
7
Long-term durability of carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic stenosis and risk factors for late postoperative stroke.有症状性狭窄的颈动脉内膜切除术的长期耐久性及术后晚期卒中的危险因素。
Stroke. 2002 Nov;33(11):2658-63. doi: 10.1161/01.str.0000034397.72390.d3.
8
Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis有症状的颈动脉狭窄
9
Carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.无症状性颈动脉狭窄的颈动脉内膜切除术
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Oct 19;2005(4):CD001923. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001923.pub2.
10
Reoperations for carotid artery stenosis: role of primary and secondary reconstructions.颈动脉狭窄的再次手术:一期和二期重建的作用
J Vasc Surg. 2001 Mar;33(3):495-503. doi: 10.1067/mva.2001.111730.

引用本文的文献

1
Carotid Plaque-Derived Small Extracellular Vesicles Mediate Atherosclerosis and Correlate With Plaque Vulnerability.颈动脉斑块来源的小细胞外囊泡介导动脉粥样硬化并与斑块易损性相关。
MedComm (2020). 2025 May 19;6(6):e70220. doi: 10.1002/mco2.70220. eCollection 2025 Jun.
2
Effectiveness of Compound Dilong Capsules in Patients with Asymptomatic Cerebral Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.复方地龙胶囊治疗无症状性脑颈动脉狭窄患者的疗效:一项回顾性病例对照研究。
Int J Gen Med. 2024 Jul 15;17:3073-3081. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S473057. eCollection 2024.
3
Carotid revascularisation versus medical treatment for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

本文引用的文献

1
Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in the US Medicare Population, 1999-2014.1999 - 2014年美国医疗保险人群中的颈动脉内膜切除术和颈动脉支架置入术
JAMA. 2017 Sep 19;318(11):1035-1046. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.12882.
2
Examining Bias in Studies of Statin Treatment and Survival in Patients With Cancer.评估他汀类药物治疗与癌症患者生存研究中的偏倚。
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Jan 1;4(1):63-70. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.2752.
3
Carotid revascularization and medical management for asymptomatic carotid stenosis: Protocol of the CREST-2 clinical trials.
颈动脉血运重建术与药物治疗用于无症状颈动脉狭窄
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jul 5;7(7):CD015499. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015499.
4
William M. Feinberg Lecture: Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: Current and Future Considerations.William M. Feinberg 讲座:无症状颈动脉狭窄:当前和未来的考虑。
Stroke. 2024 Aug;55(8):2184-2192. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.124.046956. Epub 2024 Jun 26.
5
Making causal inferences from transactional data: A narrative review of opportunities and challenges when implementing the target trial framework.从交易数据中进行因果推断:实施目标试验框架时的机遇与挑战述评。
J Int Med Res. 2024 Mar;52(3):3000605241241920. doi: 10.1177/03000605241241920.
6
Heavy macrophage infiltration identified by optical coherence tomography relates to plaque rupture.光学相干断层扫描识别的巨噬细胞浸润与斑块破裂有关。
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2023 Dec;10(12):2334-2346. doi: 10.1002/acn3.51923. Epub 2023 Oct 12.
7
Reporting of Observational Studies Explicitly Aiming to Emulate Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review.旨在模拟随机试验的观察性研究报告:系统评价。
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Sep 5;6(9):e2336023. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36023.
8
Implementation of the trial emulation approach in medical research: a scoping review.在医学研究中实施试验模拟方法:范围综述。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023 Aug 16;23(1):186. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02000-9.
9
A comparative effectiveness study of carotid intervention for long-term stroke prevention in patients with severe asymptomatic stenosis from a large integrated health system.一项来自大型综合医疗体系的研究显示,在严重无症状狭窄的患者中,颈动脉介入治疗在长期预防卒中方面具有比较优势。
J Vasc Surg. 2023 Nov;78(5):1239-1247.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2023.06.024. Epub 2023 Jul 4.
10
Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Look Into the Diagnostic and Management Strategies, and Related Complications.颈动脉狭窄:诊断与管理策略及相关并发症探讨
Cureus. 2023 May 9;15(5):e38794. doi: 10.7759/cureus.38794. eCollection 2023 May.
无症状性颈动脉狭窄的颈动脉血运重建与药物治疗:CREST-2临床试验方案
Int J Stroke. 2017 Oct;12(7):770-778. doi: 10.1177/1747493017706238. Epub 2017 May 2.
4
Specifying a target trial prevents immortal time bias and other self-inflicted injuries in observational analyses.指定目标试验可防止观察性分析中出现不朽时间偏倚和其他自伤性偏倚。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Nov;79:70-75. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.014. Epub 2016 May 27.
5
Extracting a stroke phenotype risk factor from Veteran Health Administration clinical reports: an information content analysis.从退伍军人健康管理局临床报告中提取中风表型风险因素:一项信息内容分析。
J Biomed Semantics. 2016 May 10;7:26. doi: 10.1186/s13326-016-0065-1. eCollection 2016.
6
Using Big Data to Emulate a Target Trial When a Randomized Trial Is Not Available.在没有随机试验时使用大数据模拟目标试验。
Am J Epidemiol. 2016 Apr 15;183(8):758-64. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwv254. Epub 2016 Mar 18.
7
Introduction to the Analysis of Survival Data in the Presence of Competing Risks.存在竞争风险时生存数据的分析导论
Circulation. 2016 Feb 9;133(6):601-9. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017719.
8
Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2016 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association.《2016年心脏病和中风统计数据更新:美国心脏协会报告》
Circulation. 2016 Jan 26;133(4):e38-360. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000350. Epub 2015 Dec 16.
9
Aggressive medical treatment with or without stenting in high-risk patients with intracranial artery stenosis (SAMMPRIS): the final results of a randomised trial.高风险颅内动脉狭窄患者(SAMMPRIS)强化药物治疗联合或不联合支架置入的疗效:一项随机试验的最终结果。
Lancet. 2014 Jan 25;383(9914):333-41. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62038-3. Epub 2013 Oct 26.
10
A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models.使用广义提升模型进行多种处理的倾向评分估计教程。
Stat Med. 2013 Aug 30;32(19):3388-414. doi: 10.1002/sim.5753. Epub 2013 Mar 18.