Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China.
Key Vascular Physiology and Applied Research Laboratory of Zhengzhou City, Henan, China.
Interv Neuroradiol. 2024 Jun;30(3):396-403. doi: 10.1177/15910199221123283. Epub 2022 Aug 29.
Ischemic stroke and disability caused by carotid artery stenosis have always been worldwide problems. At present, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) have been commonly used to treat carotid artery stenosis. Recently, transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) seems to be another option.
We searched PubMed and Embase to find literatures comparing TCAR with TFCAS and CEA. The primary outcomes were stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), transient ischemic attack (TIA), death, cranial nerve injure (CNI), and operative time. Secondary outcomes were stroke, death, MI in the elderly; cost; radiation; and entry site complication.
Initial search of the literature included 165 articles, of which 12 studies were chosen in the end. These studies demonstrated high technical success rate of TCAR. Patients who received TCAR had lower risks of death, stroke/death and less radiation exposure compared to TFCAS. In meta analysis, the risk of stroke was significantly lower in TCAR group than TFCAS (OR 0.63; 95%CI 0.47-0.85). And there was no significant difference in TIA and MI. TCAR was associated with shorter operative time, lower risk of CNI and less blood loss compared to CEA. In older patients, the effect of TCAR was significantly better than that of TFCAS.
TCAR is associated with a lower risk of perioperative stroke compared to TFCAS. TCAR is also associated with shorter operative time, lower risk of CNI and less blood loss compared to CEA. TCAR may be a promising treatment option besides TFCAS and CEA.
颈动脉狭窄导致的缺血性卒中和残疾一直是全球性问题。目前,颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)和经股动脉颈动脉支架置入术(TFCAS)已被广泛用于治疗颈动脉狭窄。最近,经颈动脉血管重建术(TCAR)似乎是另一种选择。
我们检索了 PubMed 和 Embase 以查找比较 TCAR 与 TFCAS 和 CEA 的文献。主要结局是卒 中、心肌梗死(MI)、短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)、死亡、颅神经损伤(CNI)和手术时间。次要结局是老年患者的卒 中、死亡、MI;成本;辐射;和入路部位并发症。
最初的文献搜索包括 165 篇文章,最终选择了 12 项研究。这些研究表明 TCAR 的技术成功率很高。与 TFCAS 相比,接受 TCAR 的患者死亡、卒 中/死亡风险较低,辐射暴露较少。荟萃分析显示,TCAR 组卒 中的风险明显低于 TFCAS 组(OR 0.63;95%CI 0.47-0.85)。TIA 和 MI 无显著差异。与 CEA 相比,TCAR 具有更短的手术时间、更低的 CNI 风险和更少的出血量。在老年患者中,TCAR 的效果明显优于 TFCAS。
与 TFCAS 相比,TCAR 围手术期卒 中的风险较低。与 CEA 相比,TCAR 还具有更短的手术时间、更低的 CNI 风险和更少的出血量。除了 TFCAS 和 CEA,TCAR 可能是一种有前途的治疗选择。