Suppr超能文献

血管质量倡议中经上肢与经股动脉和颈动脉途径行颈动脉支架置入术后住院期间结局比较。

In-hospital outcomes after upper extremity versus transfemoral and transcarotid access for carotid stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

Department of Surgery, Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Vascular Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

出版信息

J Vasc Surg. 2022 Dec;76(6):1603-1614.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.05.030. Epub 2022 Jul 14.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is frequently used for patients at high risk for carotid endarterectomy. However, there are limited data comparing transradial or transbrachial (tr/tbCAS) access with more established CAS approaches. Therefore, we examined the effect of a tr/tbCAS approach versus a transfemoral (tfCAS) or transcarotid (TCAR) approach on outcomes after CAS.

METHODS

We identified all patients undergoing CAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from January 2016 to December 2021. We compared outcomes across 1:3 propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who underwent tr/tbCAS versus tfCAS or tr/tbCAS versus TCAR. As a secondary analysis, we assessed outcomes stratified by carotid symptom status. Our primary outcome was a composite end point of in-hospital stroke/death.

RESULTS

Among 40,835 CAS patients, 962 (2.4%) underwent tr/tbCAS, 18,840 (46%) underwent tfCAS, and 21,033 (52%) underwent TCAR. Among matched patients who underwent tr/tbCAS versus tfCAS, there was no significant difference in the risk of stroke/death (4.1% vs 2.9%; relative risk [RR] 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-2.1), but tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of death (2.4% vs 1.3%; RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.1). In the symptomatic subgroup, tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of stroke/death (6.1% vs 3.9%; RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4) and death (3.6% vs 1.7%; RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.2-3.7), but there were no differences in asymptomatic patients. After adjustment for mRS in patients with preoperative stroke, there were no significant differences in stroke/death (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.66-1.9) or death (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.81-3.3) between groups. In matched patients who underwent tr/tbCAS versus TCAR, tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of stroke/death (4.2% vs 2.3%; RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7) and death (2.4% vs 0.5%; RR, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.4-9.5). In the symptomatic subgroup, tr/tbCAS remained associated with a higher risk of stroke/death (6.2% vs 2.4%; RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.2) and death (3.7% vs 0.7%; RR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.6-12), but there were no differences in asymptomatic patients. After adjustment for Modified Rankin Scale in patients with preoperative stroke, there were no significant differences in stroke/death (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.79-2.6) or death (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.95-5.7) between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with tfCAS or TCAR, tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital stroke/death in symptomatic patients, which was driven primarily by a higher risk of death. These inferior outcomes were partly attributable to more severe preoperative neurologic disability in tr/tbCAS patients. In contrast, there were no differences in outcomes in asymptomatic patients. Overall, our findings highlight the importance of guideline-directed patient selection in tr/tbCAS.

摘要

目的

颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)常用于颈动脉内膜切除术高危患者。然而,目前比较经桡动脉或肱动脉(tr/tbCAS)与更成熟的 CAS 方法的研究数据有限。因此,我们研究了 tr/tbCAS 与经股动脉(tfCAS)或经颈动脉(TCAR)途径对 CAS 后结局的影响。

方法

我们从 2016 年 1 月至 2021 年 12 月,从血管质量倡议登记处确定了所有接受 CAS 的患者。我们比较了 tr/tbCAS 与 tfCAS 或 tr/tbCAS 与 TCA 的 1:3 倾向评分匹配队列患者的结局。作为二次分析,我们评估了按颈动脉症状状态分层的结局。我们的主要结局是住院期间卒中/死亡的复合终点。

结果

在 40835 例 CAS 患者中,962 例(2.4%)接受 tr/tbCAS,18840 例(46%)接受 tfCAS,21033 例(52%)接受 TCA。在接受 tr/tbCAS 与 tfCAS 的匹配患者中,卒中/死亡的风险无显著差异(4.1%vs.2.9%;相对风险[RR]1.4;95%置信区间[CI]0.95-2.1),但 tr/tbCAS 与更高的死亡率相关(2.4%vs.1.3%;RR,1.8;95%CI,1.1-3.1)。在症状亚组中,tr/tbCAS 与更高的卒中/死亡风险相关(6.1%vs.3.9%;RR,1.6;95%CI,1.0-2.4)和死亡率(3.6%vs.1.7%;RR,2.1;95%CI,1.2-3.7),但无症状患者无差异。在调整了术前卒中患者的改良 Rankin 量表后,两组之间在卒中/死亡(RR,1.1;95%CI,0.66-1.9)或死亡(RR,1.6;95%CI,0.81-3.3)方面无显著差异。在接受 tr/tbCAS 与 TCA 的匹配患者中,tr/tbCAS 与更高的卒中/死亡风险相关(4.2%vs.2.3%;RR,1.8;95%CI,1.2-2.7)和死亡率(2.4%vs.0.5%;RR,4.8;95%CI,2.4-9.5)。在症状亚组中,tr/tbCAS 仍与更高的卒中/死亡风险相关(6.2%vs.2.4%;RR,2.6;95%CI,1.6-4.2)和死亡率(3.7%vs.0.7%;RR,5.6;95%CI,2.6-12),但无症状患者无差异。在调整了术前改良 Rankin 量表后,两组在卒中/死亡(RR,1.4;95%CI,0.79-2.6)或死亡(RR,2.3;95%CI,0.95-5.7)方面无显著差异。

结论

与 tfCAS 或 TCA 相比,tr/tbCAS 与症状性患者住院期间卒中/死亡的风险增加相关,这主要归因于死亡风险的增加。这些不良结局部分归因于 tr/tbCAS 患者术前神经功能障碍更为严重。相比之下,无症状患者的结局没有差异。总体而言,我们的研究结果强调了在 tr/tbCAS 中指南指导的患者选择的重要性。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

9
Balance diagnostics after propensity score matching.倾向得分匹配后的平衡诊断
Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jan;7(1):16. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.12.10.

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