• 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

经股动脉与经颈动脉支架置入术的机构经验

Institutional Experiences with Transfemoral Compared to Transcarotid Stenting.

作者信息

Olvera Alejandro, Leckie Katherin, Tanaka Akiko, Motaganahalli Raghu L, Madison Mackenzie K, Keyhani Arash, Keyhani Kourosh, Wang S Keisin

机构信息

Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth), Houston, TX.

Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.

出版信息

Ann Vasc Surg. 2022 Oct;86:366-372. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2022.04.020. Epub 2022 Apr 22.

DOI:10.1016/j.avsg.2022.04.020
PMID:35470049
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a new surgical technique that is gaining popularity over the transfemoral method (TF-CAS) as the preferred strategy to deliver a carotid stent. This investigation was performed to evaluate the real-world perioperative and long-term outcomes of both techniques at the health system level.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively maintained carotid revascularization databases were performed at 2 high-volume TCAR centers in the United States to extract consecutive TF-CAS and TCAR procedures. The characteristics and outcomes associated with these 2 modalities were compared at the preoperative and perioperative points by univariate methods. The Kaplan-Meier methodology was utilized to calculate the long-term stroke and death trends.

RESULTS

From 2008-2021, 1,058 carotid stents were implanted at our institutions, consisting of 750 TCARs and 308 TF-CAS procedures. Patients undergoing TF-CAS were older (68.2 ± 0.6 vs. 73.1 ± 0.3 years, P < 0.01) and unhealthier by Charlson Comorbidity Index (4.9 ± 0.1 vs. 5.5 ± 0.1, P < 0.01). Additionally, TF-CAS patients had more high-risk anatomic characteristics, such as restenosis after previous carotid surgery (27.0% vs. 9.5%, P < 0.01), previous ipsilateral neck surgery (38.8% vs. 11.5%, P < 0.01), irradiated ipsilateral field (20.4% vs. 4.5%, P < 0.01), and a contralateral carotid occlusion (10.4% vs. 4.6%, P < 0.01). The incidence of symptomatic lesions was the same (40.1% vs. 36.9%, P = 0.35). Within the operating room, TCAR outperformed TF-CAS with respect to operative time (83.2 ± 2.6 vs. 64.3 ± 0.9 min, P < 0.01), radiation exposure (769.9 ± 144.3 vs. 232.7 ± 19.1 mGys, P < 0.01), fluoroscopic time (17.8 ± 1.1 vs. 4.5 ± 0.1 min, P < 0.01), and contrast volume (75.2 ± 2.4 vs. 22.6 ± 0.4 mLs, P < 0.01). In the 30-day perioperative period, ipsilateral stroke (2.8% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.65), contralateral stroke (1.0% vs. 0.1%, P = 0.07), and death (1.0% vs. 1.2%, P > 0.99) were similar between modalities. None of these endpoints, including a composite of stroke and death (4.8% vs. 3.6%, P = 0.38), reached statistical significance. Additionally, we found no differences with respect to stroke-free survival between modalities during follow-up by Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = 0.30).

CONCLUSIONS

In this combined experience from 2 large health systems, TCAR was associated with less intraoperative complexity, as measured by operative time, radiation exposure, and contrast volume. Although stroke and death seemed to be less frequent in patients undergoing transcervical stenting, this did not reach statistical significance.

摘要

背景

经颈动脉血管重建术(TCAR)是一种新的外科技术,作为输送颈动脉支架的首选策略,它比经股动脉方法(TF-CAS)更受欢迎。本研究旨在评估这两种技术在医疗系统层面的真实围手术期和长期结局。

方法

在美国的2个高容量TCAR中心,对前瞻性维护的颈动脉血管重建数据库进行回顾性分析,以提取连续的TF-CAS和TCAR手术。通过单变量方法比较这两种手术方式在术前和围手术期的特征及结局。采用Kaplan-Meier方法计算长期卒中及死亡趋势。

结果

2008年至2021年期间,我们机构共植入了1058个颈动脉支架,其中包括750例TCAR手术和308例TF-CAS手术。接受TF-CAS手术的患者年龄更大(68.2±0.6岁对73.1±0.3岁,P<0.01),根据Charlson合并症指数评估健康状况更差(4.9±0.1对5.5±0.1,P<0.01)。此外,TF-CAS手术患者具有更多高风险解剖特征,如既往颈动脉手术后再狭窄(27.0%对9.5%,P<0.01)、既往同侧颈部手术(38.8%对11.5%,P<0.01)、同侧照射野(20.4%对4.5%,P<0.01)以及对侧颈动脉闭塞(10.4%对4.6%,P<0.01)。有症状病变的发生率相同(40.1%对36.9%,P=0.35)。在手术室中,TCAR在手术时间(83.2±2.6分钟对64.3±0.9分钟,P<0.01)、辐射暴露(769.9±144.3对232.7±19.1毫戈瑞,P<0.01)、透视时间(17.8±1.1分钟对4.5±0.1分钟,P<0.01)和造影剂用量(75.2±2.4毫升对22.6±0.4毫升,P<0.01)方面优于TF-CAS。在30天围手术期内,两种手术方式的同侧卒中(2.8%对2.3%,P=0.65)、对侧卒中(1.0%对0.1%,P=0.07)和死亡(1.0%对1.2%,P>0.99)相似。这些终点事件,包括卒中和死亡的复合终点(4.8%对3.6%,P=0.38),均未达到统计学显著性。此外,通过Kaplan-Meier分析,我们发现在随访期间两种手术方式在无卒中生存方面无差异(P=0.30)。

结论

在这2个大型医疗系统的综合经验中,以手术时间、辐射暴露和造影剂用量衡量,TCAR的术中复杂性较低。尽管经颈动脉支架置入术患者的卒中和死亡似乎较少,但未达到统计学显著性。

相似文献

1
Institutional Experiences with Transfemoral Compared to Transcarotid Stenting.经股动脉与经颈动脉支架置入术的机构经验
Ann Vasc Surg. 2022 Oct;86:366-372. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2022.04.020. Epub 2022 Apr 22.
2
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.
3
Association of carotid revascularization approach with perioperative outcomes based on symptom status and degree of stenosis among octogenarians.基于症状和狭窄程度,80 岁及以上人群颈动脉血运重建方法与围手术期结局的相关性。
J Vasc Surg. 2022 Sep;76(3):769-777.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.04.027. Epub 2022 May 25.
4
A single-center experience of 30-day perioperative and one year clinical outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization in 100 consecutive patients.100 例连续患者经颈动脉血运重建术的 30 天围手术期和一年临床结局的单中心经验。
Vascular. 2023 Dec;31(6):1161-1172. doi: 10.1177/17085381221106330. Epub 2022 May 29.
5
Procedural Safety Comparison Between Transcarotid Artery Revascularization, Carotid Endarterectomy, and Carotid Stenting: Perioperative and 1-Year Rates of Stroke or Death.经颈动脉血运重建术、颈动脉内膜切除术和颈动脉支架置入术的围手术期和 1 年卒中或死亡率的操作安全性比较。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2022 Oct 4;11(19):e024964. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.024964. Epub 2022 Sep 29.
6
Impact of head and neck radiation on long-term outcomes after carotid revascularization.头颈部放疗对颈动脉血运重建术后长期预后的影响。
J Vasc Surg. 2024 Aug;80(2):422-430. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2024.03.441. Epub 2024 Apr 1.
7
Clinical outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization vs carotid endarterectomy from a large single-center experience.来自大型单中心经验的经颈动脉血管重建术与颈动脉内膜切除术的临床结果。
J Vasc Surg. 2024 Jun;79(6):1402-1411.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2024.01.213. Epub 2024 Feb 5.
8
Propensity score-matched analysis of 1-year outcomes of transcarotid revascularization with dynamic flow reversal, carotid endarterectomy, and transfemoral carotid artery stenting.经颈动脉血管重建术(动态血流逆转)、颈动脉内膜切除术和经股动脉颈动脉支架置入术1年结局的倾向评分匹配分析。
J Vasc Surg. 2022 Jan;75(1):213-222.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.07.242. Epub 2021 Sep 6.
9
Effect of Perioperative Stroke on Survival After Carotid Intervention.围手术期卒中对颈动脉介入治疗后生存的影响。
Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2024 Apr;58(3):280-286. doi: 10.1177/15385744231207015. Epub 2023 Oct 18.
10
Transcarotid artery revascularization is safe in necks with anatomy hostile for carotid endarterectomy.经颈动脉血管重建术在颈动脉内膜切除术解剖结构不佳的颈部是安全的。
J Vasc Surg. 2022 Oct;76(4):961-966. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.04.030. Epub 2022 May 28.