Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University (Rangsit Campus), Pathum Thani, Thailand.
Centre for Prevention of Stroke and Dementia, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Feb 18;2(2):CD000071. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000071.pub4.
Extracranial carotid artery stenosis is the major cause of stroke, which can lead to disability and mortality. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with carotid patch angioplasty is the most popular technique for reducing the risk of stroke. Patch material may be made from an autologous vein, bovine pericardium, or synthetic material including polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), Dacron, polyurethane, and polyester. This is an update of a review that was first published in 1996 and was last updated in 2010.
To assess the safety and efficacy of different types of patch materials used in carotid patch angioplasty. The primary hypothesis was that a synthetic material was associated with lower risk of patch rupture versus venous patches, but that venous patches were associated with lower risk of perioperative stroke and early or late infection, or both.
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched 25 May 2020); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 4), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1966 to 25 May 2020); Embase (1980 to 25 May 2020); the Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings (1980 to 2019); the Web of Science Core Collection; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal. We handsearched relevant journals and conference proceedings, checked reference lists, and contacted experts in the field.
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials (RCTs) comparing one type of carotid patch with another for CEA.
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias, and trial quality; extracted data; and determined the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcomes, for example, perioperative ipsilateral stroke and long-term ipsilateral stroke (at least one year), were collected and analysed.
We included 14 trials involving a total of 2278 CEAs with patch closure operations: seven trials compared vein closure with PTFE closure, five compared Dacron grafts with other synthetic materials, and two compared bovine pericardium with other synthetic materials. In most trials, a patient could be randomised twice and could have each carotid artery randomised to different treatment groups. Synthetic patch compared with vein patch angioplasty Vein patch may have little to no difference in effect on perioperative ipsilateral stroke between synthetic versus vein materials, but the evidence is very uncertain (odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 6.38; 5 studies, 797 participants; very low-quality evidence). Vein patch may have little to no difference in effect on long-term ipsilateral stroke between synthetic versus vein materials, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.07; P = 0.33; 4 studies, 776 participants; very low-quality evidence). Vein patch may increase pseudoaneurysm formation when compared with synthetic patch, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.49; 4 studies, 776 participants; very low-quality evidence). However, the numbers involved were small. Dacron patch compared with other synthetic patch angioplasty Dacron versus PTFE patch materials PTFE patch may reduce the risk of perioperative ipsilateral stroke (OR 3.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 59.06; 2 studies, 400 participants; very low-quality evidence). PTFE patch may reduce the risk of long-term ipsilateral stroke (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.27; 1 study, 200 participants; very low-quality evidence). Dacron may result in an increase in perioperative combined stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) (OR 4.41 95% CI 1.20 to 16.14; 1 study, 200 participants; low-quality evidence) when compared with PTFE. Early arterial re-stenosis or occlusion (within 30 days) was also higher for Dacron patches. During follow-up for longer than one year, more 'any strokes' (OR 10.58, 95% CI 1.34 to 83.43; 2 studies, 304 participants; low-quality evidence) and stroke/death (OR 6.06, 95% CI 1.31 to 28.07; 1 study, 200 participants; low-quality evidence) were reported with Dacron patch closure, although numbers of outcome events were small. Dacron patch may increase the risk of re-stenosis when compared with other synthetic materials (especially with PTFE), but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 3.73, 95% CI 0.71 to 19.65; 3 studies, 490 participants; low-quality evidence). Bovine pericardium patch compared with other synthetic patch angioplasty Bovine pericardium versus PTFE patch materials Evidence suggests that bovine pericardium patch results in a reduction in long-term ipsilateral stroke (OR 4.17, 95% CI 0.46 to 38.02; 1 study, 195 participants; low-quality evidence). Bovine pericardial patch may reduce the risk of perioperative fatal stroke, death, and infection compared to synthetic material (OR 5.16, 95% CI 0.24 to 108.83; 2 studies, 290 participants; low-quality evidence for PTFE, and low-quality evidence for Dacron; OR 4.39, 95% CI 0.48 to 39.95; 2 studies, 290 participants; low-quality evidence for PTFE, and low-quality evidence for Dacron; OR 7.30, 95% CI 0.37 to 143.16; 1 study, 195 participants; low-quality evidence, respectively), but the numbers of outcomes were small. The evidence is very uncertain about effects of the patch on infection outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The number of outcome events is too small to allow conclusions, and more trial data are required to establish whether any differences do exist. Nevertheless, there is little to no difference in effect on perioperative and long-term ipsilateral stroke between vein and any synthetic patch material. Some evidence indicates that other synthetic patches (e.g. PTFE) may be superior to Dacron grafts in terms of perioperative stroke and TIA rates, and both early and late arterial re-stenosis and occlusion. Pseudoaneurysm formation may be more common after use of a vein patch than after use of a synthetic patch. Bovine pericardial patch, which is an acellular xenograft material, may reduce the risk of perioperative fatal stroke, death, and infection compared to other synthetic patches. Further large RCTs are required before definitive conclusions can be reached.
颅外颈动脉狭窄是中风的主要原因,可导致残疾和死亡。颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)联合颈动脉补片血管成形术是降低中风风险的最常用技术。补片材料可以取自自体静脉、牛心包或包括聚四氟乙烯(PTFE)、膨体聚四氟乙烯(ePTFE)、Dacron、聚氨酯、聚酯在内的合成材料。这是一篇综述的更新,该综述最初发表于 1996 年,最近一次更新于 2010 年。
评估不同类型的补片材料在颈动脉补片血管成形术中的安全性和有效性。主要假设是合成材料与静脉补片相比,其补片破裂的风险较低,但静脉补片与围手术期中风和早期或晚期感染或两者均较低的风险相关。
我们检索了 Cochrane 卒中组试验注册库(最近检索日期为 2020 年 5 月 25 日);Cochrane 中心对照试验注册库(CENTRAL;2020 年,第 4 期),在 Cochrane 图书馆;MEDLINE(1966 年至 2020 年 5 月 25 日);Embase(1980 年至 2020 年 5 月 25 日);科技会议录索引(1980 年至 2019 年);科学与技术国际会议录索引(Web of Science Core Collection);ClinicalTrials.gov;以及世界卫生组织(WHO)国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)门户。我们手工检索了相关杂志和会议论文集,查阅了参考文献,并联系了该领域的专家。
比较颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)中一种颈动脉补片与另一种颈动脉补片的随机和准随机试验(RCT)。
两名综述作者独立评估了纳入标准、偏倚风险和试验质量;提取数据;并使用 GRADE 方法确定证据质量。收集和分析了围手术期同侧中风和长期同侧中风(至少一年)等结局。
我们纳入了 14 项涉及 2278 例颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)和补片关闭手术的试验:7 项试验比较了静脉补片与 PTFE 补片,5 项试验比较了膨体聚四氟乙烯(ePTFE)与其他合成材料,2 项试验比较了牛心包与其他合成材料。在大多数试验中,患者可以进行两次随机分组,并且每条颈动脉都可以随机分配到不同的治疗组。合成补片与静脉补片血管成形术比较静脉补片与合成材料相比,可能对围手术期同侧中风无明显差异,但证据非常不确定(比值比(OR)2.05,95%置信区间(CI)0.66 至 6.38;5 项研究,797 名参与者;极低质量证据)。静脉补片与合成材料相比,对长期同侧中风的影响可能无明显差异,但证据非常不确定(OR 1.45,95%置信区间(CI)0.69 至 3.07;P = 0.33;4 项研究,776 名参与者;极低质量证据)。与合成补片相比,静脉补片可能会增加假性动脉瘤形成的风险,但证据非常不确定(OR 0.09,95%置信区间(CI)0.02 至 0.49;4 项研究,776 名参与者;极低质量证据)。然而,涉及的数量很小。膨体聚四氟乙烯(ePTFE)补片与其他合成补片血管成形术比较膨体聚四氟乙烯(ePTFE)与聚对二甲苯(PTFE)补片材料 PTFE 补片可能降低围手术期同侧中风的风险(OR 3.35,95%置信区间(CI)0.19 至 59.06;2 项研究,400 名参与者;极低质量证据)。PTFE 补片可能降低长期同侧中风的风险(OR 1.52,95%置信区间(CI)0.25 至 9.27;1 项研究,200 名参与者;极低质量证据)。与 PTFE 相比,Dacron 可能会增加围手术期联合中风和短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)(OR 4.41 95%置信区间(CI)1.20 至 16.14;1 项研究,200 名参与者;低质量证据)。与 PTFE 相比,早期动脉再狭窄或闭塞(30 天内)也更高。在超过一年的随访中,Dacron 补片组的“任何中风”(OR 10.58,95%置信区间(CI)1.34 至 83.43;2 项研究,304 名参与者;低质量证据)和中风/死亡(OR 6.06,95%置信区间(CI)1.31 至 28.07;1 项研究,200 名参与者;低质量证据)的发生率更高,尽管结局事件的数量较少。与其他合成材料(尤其是 PTFE)相比,Dacron 补片可能会增加再狭窄的风险,但证据非常不确定(OR 3.73,95%置信区间(CI)0.71 至 19.65;3 项研究,490 名参与者;低质量证据)。牛心包补片与其他合成补片血管成形术比较牛心包与 PTFE 补片材料证据表明,牛心包补片可降低长期同侧中风的风险(OR 4.17,95%置信区间(CI)0.46 至 38.02;1 项研究,195 名参与者;低质量证据)。与合成材料相比,牛心包补片可能降低围手术期致命性中风、死亡和感染的风险(OR 5.16,95%置信区间(CI)0.24 至 108.83;2 项研究,290 名参与者;低质量证据,PTFE;低质量证据,Dacron;OR 4.39,95%置信区间(CI)0.48 至 39.95;2 项研究,290 名参与者;低质量证据,PTFE;低质量证据,Dacron;OR 7.30,95%置信区间(CI)0.37 至 143.16;1 项研究,195 名参与者;低质量证据,分别),但结局事件的数量较少。关于补片对感染结局的影响的证据非常不确定。
由于结局事件数量太少,无法得出结论,需要更多的试验数据来确定是否存在差异。尽管如此,在围手术期和长期同侧中风方面,静脉和任何合成补片材料之间可能没有明显差异。一些证据表明,与膨体聚四氟乙烯(ePTFE)移植物相比,其他合成补片(如 PTFE)在围手术期中风和 TIA 发生率方面可能具有优势,并且早期和晚期动脉再狭窄和闭塞的发生率也是如此。与合成补片相比,静脉补片可能更常见假性动脉瘤形成。牛心包补片,作为一种无细胞的异种移植物,与其他合成补片相比,可能降低围手术期致命性中风、死亡和感染的风险。需要进一步的大型 RCT 来得出明确的结论。