Suppr超能文献

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。

Association of carotid revascularization approach with perioperative outcomes based on symptom status and degree of stenosis among octogenarians.

机构信息

Vascular Institute of New York, Brooklyn, NY.

Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.

出版信息

J Vasc Surg. 2022 Sep;76(3):769-777.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.04.027. Epub 2022 May 25.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Age ≥80 years is known to be an independent risk factor for periprocedural stroke after transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) but not after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The objective of the present study was to compare the perioperative outcomes for CEA, TF-CAS, and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) among octogenarian patients (aged ≥80 years) overall and stratified by symptom status and degree of stenosis.

METHODS

All patients aged ≥80 years with 50% to 99% carotid artery stenosis who had undergone CEA, TF-CAS, or TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative (2005-2020) were included. We compared the perioperative (30-day) incidence of ipsilateral stroke or death for CEA vs TF-CAS vs TCAR using analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression models. The results were confirmed in a sensitivity analysis stratified by symptom status and degree of stenosis.

RESULTS

Overall, 28,571 carotid revascularization procedures were performed in patients aged ≥80 years: CEA, n = 20,912 (73.2%), TF-CAS, n = 3628 (12.7%), and TCAR, n = 4031 (14.1%). The median age was 83 years (interquartile range, 81.0-86.0 years); 49.8% of the patients were symptomatic (51.9% CEA, 46.2% TF-CAS, 42.4% TCAR); and 60.7% had high-grade stenosis (59.0% CEA, 65.2% TF-CAS, 65.4% TCAR). Perioperative stroke/death occurred most frequently following TF-CAS (6.6%), followed by TCAR (3.1%) and CEA (2.5%; P < .001). After adjusting for baseline differences between groups, the odds ratio (OR) for stroke/death was greater for TF-CAS vs CEA (adjusted OR [aOR], 3.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.65-4.23), followed by TCAR vs CEA (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.18-1.87). The risk of perioperative stroke/death remained significantly greater for TF-CAS compared with CEA regardless of symptom status and degree of stenosis (P < .05 for all). In contrast, the risk of stroke/death was higher for TCAR vs CEA for asymptomatic patients (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.41-2.94) and those with high-grade stenosis (aOR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.11-2.05) but similar for patients with symptomatic and moderate-grade disease (P > .05 for both). The risk of myocardial infarction was lower with TCAR (aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40-0.87) and TF-CAS (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.87) compared with CEA overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, TCAR and CEA can be safely offered to older adults, in particular, symptomatic patients and those with moderate-grade stenosis. TF-CAS should be avoided in older patients when possible.

摘要

目的

年龄≥80 岁是经股动脉颈动脉支架置入术(TF-CAS)后围手术期卒中的独立危险因素,但不是颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)后围手术期卒中的独立危险因素。本研究的目的是比较 80 岁以上患者(年龄≥80 岁)行 CEA、TF-CAS 和经颈动脉血管重建术(TCAR)的围手术期结果,并根据症状状态和狭窄程度进行分层比较。

方法

纳入了 2005 年至 2020 年血管质量倡议中接受 50%至 99%颈动脉狭窄的 CEA、TF-CAS 或 TCAR 的所有年龄≥80 岁的患者。我们使用方差分析和多变量逻辑回归模型比较了 CEA 与 TF-CAS 与 TCAR 的围手术期(30 天)同侧卒中或死亡发生率。在按症状状态和狭窄程度分层的敏感性分析中确认了结果。

结果

总体而言,在年龄≥80 岁的患者中进行了 28571 例颈动脉血运重建手术:CEA,n=20912(73.2%),TF-CAS,n=3628(12.7%)和 TCAR,n=4031(14.1%)。中位年龄为 83 岁(四分位间距,81.0-86.0 岁);49.8%的患者有症状(51.9% CEA、46.2% TF-CAS、42.4% TCAR);60.7%的患者有重度狭窄(59.0% CEA、65.2% TF-CAS、65.4% TCAR)。TF-CAS 后围手术期卒中/死亡最常见(6.6%),其次是 TCAR(3.1%)和 CEA(2.5%;P<.001)。在调整组间基线差异后,与 CEA 相比,TF-CAS 发生卒中/死亡的比值比(OR)更大(调整 OR [aOR],3.35;95%置信区间 [CI],2.65-4.23),其次是 TCAR 与 CEA(aOR 1.49,95% CI 1.18-1.87)。无论症状状态和狭窄程度如何,与 CEA 相比,TF-CAS 发生围手术期卒中/死亡的风险仍然显著更高(所有 P<.05)。相比之下,对于无症状患者(aOR,2.04;95% CI,1.41-2.94)和重度狭窄患者(aOR,1.49;95% CI,1.11-2.05),TCAR 与 CEA 相比,卒中/死亡的风险更高,但对于有症状和中度疾病的患者,风险相似(两者均 P>.05)。与 CEA 相比,TCAR(aOR,0.59;95% CI,0.40-0.87)和 TF-CAS(aOR,0.56;95% CI,0.40-0.87)的心肌梗死风险较低。

结论

总的来说,TCAR 和 CEA 可以安全地用于老年患者,特别是有症状的患者和中度狭窄的患者。TF-CAS 在可能的情况下应避免用于老年患者。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

5
History of Carotid Artery Reconstruction around the World and in Japan.颈动脉重建术的全球及日本历史。
Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2023 Jul 15;63(7):283-294. doi: 10.2176/jns-nmc.2022-0362. Epub 2023 Apr 20.

本文引用的文献

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