Suppr超能文献

颈动脉支架置入术后再狭窄的治疗:一项系统评价。

Treatment of the Carotid In-stent Restenosis: A Systematic Review.

作者信息

Huang Hao, Wu Lingshan, Guo Yinping, Zhang Yi, Zhao Jing, Yu Zhiyuan, Luo Xiang

机构信息

Department of Neurology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.

出版信息

Front Neurol. 2021 Oct 4;12:748304. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.748304. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

In-stent restenosis (ISR) after carotid artery stent (CAS) is not uncommon. We aimed to evaluate therapeutic options for ISR after CAS. We searched PubMed and EMBASE until November 2, 2020 for studies including the treatment for ISR after CAS. In total, 35 studies, covering 1,374 procedures in 1,359 patients, were included in this review. Most cases (66.3%) were treated with repeat CAS (rCAS), followed by percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) (17.5%), carotid endarterectomy (CEA) (14.3%), carotid artery bypass (1.5%), and external beam radiotherapy (0.4%). The rates of stroke & TIA within the postoperative period were similar in three groups (PTA 1.1%, rCAS 1.1%, CEA 1.5%). CEA (2.5%) was associated with a slightly higher rate of postoperative death than rCAS (0.7%, = 0.046). Furthermore, the rate of long-term stroke & TIA in PTA was 5.7%, significantly higher than rCAS (1.8%, = 0.036). PTA (27.8%) was also associated with a significantly higher recurrent restenosis rate than rCAS (8.2%, = 0.002) and CEA (1.6%, < 0.001). The long-term stroke & TIA and recurrent restenosis rates showed no significant difference between rCAS and CEA. rCAS is the most common treatment for ISR, with low postoperative risk and low long-term risk. CEA is an important alternative for rCAS. PTA may be less recommended due to the relatively high long-term risks of stroke & TIA and recurrent restenosis.

摘要

颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)后支架内再狭窄(ISR)并不罕见。我们旨在评估CAS后ISR的治疗选择。我们检索了截至2020年11月2日的PubMed和EMBASE数据库,以查找有关CAS后ISR治疗的研究。本综述共纳入35项研究,涉及1359例患者的1374例手术。大多数病例(66.3%)接受了重复CAS(rCAS)治疗,其次是经皮腔内血管成形术(PTA)(17.5%)、颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)(14.3%)、颈动脉旁路移植术(1.5%)和外照射放疗(0.4%)。三组术后卒中及短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)发生率相似(PTA为1.1%,rCAS为1.1%,CEA为1.5%)。CEA(2.5%)术后死亡率略高于rCAS(0.7%,P = 0.046)。此外,PTA组长期卒中及TIA发生率为5.7%,显著高于rCAS组(1.8%,P = 0.036)。PTA组(27.8%)再狭窄复发率也显著高于rCAS组(8.2%,P = 0.002)和CEA组(1.6%,P < 0.001)。rCAS和CEA组长期卒中及TIA和再狭窄复发率无显著差异。rCAS是ISR最常见的治疗方法,术后风险和长期风险较低。CEA是rCAS的重要替代方法。由于卒中及TIA和再狭窄复发的长期风险相对较高,PTA可能不太推荐。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/acbf/8521022/165213aa2b75/fneur-12-748304-g0001.jpg

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