Suppr超能文献

韩国单中心回顾性研究:颈动脉狭窄患者颈动脉内膜切除术和颈动脉支架置入术后的结局。

Outcomes Following Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients with Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Retrospective Study from a Single Center in South Korea.

机构信息

Department of Neurosurgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Korea University Medical Center, Ansan Hospital, Ansan, Gyeonggi, South Korea.

出版信息

Med Sci Monit. 2023 Feb 15;29:e939223. doi: 10.12659/MSM.939223.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Previous randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) included a large number of patients, but the diagnosis, treatment selection, and performance were heterogeneous. This retrospective study from a single center in South Korea aimed to evaluate outcomes following CEA and CAS in patients with carotid artery stenosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS A retrospective analysis was performed using the data of patients who underwent carotid revascularization between September 2016 and June 2021 at a single institution. The primary outcomes were stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and death during the periprocedural period. RESULTS We enrolled a total of 61 (44 symptomatic and 17 asymptomatic) patients who underwent CEA or CAS. Among them, 36 (59%) underwent CEA and 25 (41%) underwent CAS. Statistically significant differences were found between the groups in degree of carotid stenosis (CEA: 87.0±9.1, CAS: 80.5±9.3, P=0.007). All patients with confirmed plaque ulceration before carotid revascularization underwent CEA. Two (3.3%) periprocedural strokes occurred, 1 in each group, on the ipsilateral side. There were no significant differences between CEA and CAS in the event-free survival rate for stroke during the follow-up (log-rank test=0.806). CONCLUSIONS Favorable outcomes in terms of periprocedural stroke were observed. We found no significant difference between the 2 carotid revascularization techniques in the incidence of periprocedural stroke in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. To confirm our findings, further studies involving a larger number of patients and continuous follow-up are necessary.

摘要

背景

先前比较颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)和颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)的随机对照试验和荟萃分析纳入了大量患者,但诊断、治疗选择和操作存在异质性。本项来自韩国单中心的回顾性研究旨在评估颈动脉狭窄患者行 CEA 和 CAS 后的结局。

材料与方法

对 2016 年 9 月至 2021 年 6 月期间在单机构行颈动脉血运重建的患者数据进行回顾性分析。主要结局为围手术期内的卒中、心肌梗死(MI)和死亡。

结果

共纳入 61 例(44 例有症状和 17 例无症状)行 CEA 或 CAS 的患者。其中 36 例行 CEA(59%),25 例行 CAS(41%)。两组间颈动脉狭窄程度存在显著差异(CEA:87.0±9.1,CAS:80.5±9.3,P=0.007)。所有在颈动脉血运重建前确诊斑块溃疡的患者均行 CEA。2 例(3.3%)患者在围手术期同侧发生卒中,每组 1 例。在随访期间,CEA 和 CAS 组间同侧卒中的无事件生存率无显著差异(对数秩检验=0.806)。

结论

围手术期卒中的结局良好。我们发现,在有症状和无症状患者中,两种颈动脉血运重建技术在围手术期卒中发生率方面无显著差异。为了证实我们的发现,需要进一步开展纳入更多患者和持续随访的研究。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d594/9940449/ed3b1ce58574/medscimonit-29-e939223-g001.jpg

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