Kan Xuefeng, Wang Yong, Xiong Bin, Liang Bin, Zhou Guofeng, Liang Huimin, Zheng Chuansheng
Department of Radiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,, Wuhan 430022, China.
J Interv Med. 2019 Apr 30;1(1):42-48. doi: 10.19779/j.cnki.2096-3602.2018.01.09. eCollection 2018 Feb.
To evaluate the short-term and intermediate- to long-term efficacy and safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The published literature was electronically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between CAS and CEA for the treatment of carotid stenosis performed from January 2000 to January 2017. The short-term and intermediate- to long-term outcomes were evaluated. We identified 10 RCTs including 7,183 participants with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Our meta-analysis found different results between the patients with and those without symptoms. In patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis, the total stroke incidence in the CAS group was significantly higher than that in the CEA group within the 30-day periprocedural period (p<0.001); however, the myocardial infarction incidence in the CAS group was significantly lower than that in the CEA group (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the mortality within 30 days post-procedure, but the intermediate- to long-term incidence of stroke or death in the CAS group was higher than that of the CEA group (p<0.05). In contrast, for asymptomatic patients, there were no significant differences between the CAS and CEA groups in the short- and intermediate- to long-term outcomes. For patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis, CEA is associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction, whereas CAS is correlated with an increased risk of procedurally related strokes. However, for patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, no significant difference was found in the efficacy or safety between CAS and CEA.
评估颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)与颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)相比的短期及中长期疗效和安全性。通过电子检索2000年1月至2017年1月期间发表的关于CAS和CEA治疗颈动脉狭窄的随机对照试验(RCT)文献,评估短期及中长期结局。我们纳入了10项RCT,共7183例有症状或无症状颈动脉狭窄患者。我们的荟萃分析在有症状和无症状患者中发现了不同结果。在有症状的颈动脉狭窄患者中,CAS组在围手术期30天内的总卒中发生率显著高于CEA组(p<0.001);然而,CAS组的心肌梗死发生率显著低于CEA组(p<0.05)。两组术后30天内的死亡率无显著差异,但CAS组的卒中或死亡中长期发生率高于CEA组(p<0.05)。相比之下,对于无症状患者,CAS组和CEA组在短期及中长期结局方面无显著差异。对于有症状的颈动脉狭窄患者,CEA与心肌梗死风险增加相关,而CAS与围手术期相关卒中风险增加相关。然而,对于无症状的颈动脉狭窄患者,CAS和CEA在疗效或安全性方面未发现显著差异。