Suppr超能文献

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。

The Efficacy of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization With Flow Reversal System Compared to Carotid Endarterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

Gao Jianfeng, Chen Zhong, Kou Lei, Zhang Hanfang, Yang Yaoguo

机构信息

Department of Vascular, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.

出版信息

Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Nov 19;8:695295. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.695295. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

Carotid artery stenosis has long been a critical cause of stroke and death, and it can seriously affect the life quality. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are both feasible therapies for this disease. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate if the efficacy of the two approaches is comparable. Clinical studies up to March 2021 were searched through PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from a computer. The screening process was designed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for methodological quality assessment of works of literature meeting the inclusion criteria, and Review Manager 5.4 was used for data synthesis. The I statistic was performed to measure the heterogeneity, and M-H/I-V fixed or random model was utilized depending on the I value. The evidence evaluation was accomplished based on grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) online tool. A total of 14,200 subjects (six comparative studies) were finally included in this pooled study. There is no statistical discrepancy between the two treatments on reducing stroke/death/myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.67-1.07), stroke (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77-1.37), or death (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.67-1.94). Besides, TCAR is associated with a lower incidence of myocardial infarction ( = 0.004), cranial nerve injury ( < 0.00001), and shorter procedure time ( < 0.00001) than CEA among the overall cohort. TCAR is a rapidly developing treatment that reaches a comparable prognosis to CEA and significantly reduces the risk of myocardial infarction under the well-matched condition, which is a dependable choice for patients with carotid stenosis.

摘要

颈动脉狭窄长期以来一直是中风和死亡的关键原因,它会严重影响生活质量。经颈动脉血管重建术(TCAR)和颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)都是治疗这种疾病的可行方法。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在评估这两种方法的疗效是否相当。通过计算机检索PubMed、Embase和Scopus数据库,查找截至2021年3月的临床研究。筛选过程按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)声明进行设计。采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)对符合纳入标准的文献进行方法学质量评估,并使用Review Manager 5.4进行数据合成。进行I统计量以测量异质性,并根据I值使用M-H/I-V固定或随机模型。基于推荐、评估、制定和评价等级(GRADE)在线工具完成证据评估。本汇总研究最终纳入了14200名受试者(六项比较研究)。两种治疗方法在降低中风/死亡/心肌梗死(优势比[OR] 0.85,95%可信区间0.67-1.07)、中风(OR 1.03,95%可信区间0.77-1.37)或死亡(OR 1.14,95%可信区间0.67-1.94)方面无统计学差异。此外,在整个队列中,与CEA相比,TCAR的心肌梗死发生率更低(P = 0.004)、颅神经损伤发生率更低(P < 0.00001)且手术时间更短(P < 0.00001)。TCAR是一种快速发展的治疗方法,在匹配良好的情况下,其预后与CEA相当,且显著降低心肌梗死风险,是颈动脉狭窄患者的可靠选择。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/037d/8640218/19de865078e5/fcvm-08-695295-g0001.jpg

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