• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

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.

DOI:10.12659/MSM.939223
PMID:36788720
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9940449/
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/d594/9940449/62170483e1d6/medscimonit-29-e939223-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d594/9940449/ed3b1ce58574/medscimonit-29-e939223-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d594/9940449/9547b243331e/medscimonit-29-e939223-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d594/9940449/05d68626ac03/medscimonit-29-e939223-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d594/9940449/4c340189f0d3/medscimonit-29-e939223-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d594/9940449/62170483e1d6/medscimonit-29-e939223-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d594/9940449/ed3b1ce58574/medscimonit-29-e939223-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d594/9940449/9547b243331e/medscimonit-29-e939223-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d594/9940449/05d68626ac03/medscimonit-29-e939223-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d594/9940449/4c340189f0d3/medscimonit-29-e939223-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d594/9940449/62170483e1d6/medscimonit-29-e939223-g005.jpg

相似文献

1
Outcomes Following Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients with Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Retrospective Study from a Single Center in South Korea.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。
Med Sci Monit. 2023 Feb 15;29:e939223. doi: 10.12659/MSM.939223.
2
Long-term outcomes of stenting and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis: a preplanned pooled analysis of individual patient data.症状性颈动脉狭窄支架置入术和内膜切除术的长期结果:一项个体化患者数据的预先计划的合并分析。
Lancet Neurol. 2019 Apr;18(4):348-356. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30028-6. Epub 2019 Feb 6.
3
Long-Term Outcomes of Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting for Carotid Artery Stenosis: Real-World Status in Japan.颈动脉内膜切除术和颈动脉支架置入术治疗颈动脉狭窄的长期疗效:日本的真实情况
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016 Feb;25(2):360-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.10.007. Epub 2015 Nov 10.
4
Carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy: meta-analysis and diversity-adjusted trial sequential analysis of randomized trials.颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术:随机试验的荟萃分析及多样性调整试验序贯分析
Arch Neurol. 2011 Feb;68(2):172-84. doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2010.262. Epub 2010 Oct 11.
5
Differential outcomes of carotid stenting and endarterectomy performed exclusively by vascular surgeons in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST).颈动脉内膜切除术与血管外科医生实施的颈动脉支架置入术的疗效差异:颈动脉血运重建内膜切除术与支架置入术试验(CREST)。
J Vasc Surg. 2013 Feb;57(2):303-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2012.09.014. Epub 2012 Dec 20.
6
Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy in the treatment of carotid stenosis.比较颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄的随机临床试验的最新系统评价和荟萃分析。
Ann Vasc Surg. 2012 May;26(4):576-90. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2011.09.009. Epub 2012 Mar 10.
7
Carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy for the treatment of both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis: 2 years' experience in a high-volume center.颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗有症状和无症状颈动脉狭窄患者:一家大型中心的2年经验
Adv Clin Exp Med. 2018 Dec;27(12):1691-1695. doi: 10.17219/acem/75902.
8
Comparison of carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis: a single center study.症状性颈动脉狭窄患者颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术的比较:单中心研究。
Adv Ther. 2013 Sep;30(9):845-53. doi: 10.1007/s12325-013-0058-8. Epub 2013 Oct 9.
9
Stenting versus endarterectomy after prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy.既往同侧颈动脉内膜剥脱术后支架置入术与内膜剥脱术的比较
J Vasc Surg. 2017 Jan;65(1):1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2016.07.115. Epub 2016 Oct 1.
10
Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): a randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis.症状性颈动脉狭窄患者的颈动脉支架置入术与动脉内膜切除术比较(国际颈动脉支架置入研究):一项包含成本效益分析的随机对照试验
Health Technol Assess. 2016 Mar;20(20):1-94. doi: 10.3310/hta20200.

本文引用的文献

1
European Stroke Organisation guideline on endarterectomy and stenting for carotid artery stenosis.欧洲卒中组织关于颈动脉狭窄内膜切除术和支架置入术的指南。
Eur Stroke J. 2021 Jun;6(2):I-XLVII. doi: 10.1177/23969873211012121. Epub 2021 May 11.
2
Early Outcomes After Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Analysis.颈动脉内膜切除术与颈动脉支架置入术后早期结果:倾向评分匹配队列分析。
Neurosurgery. 2021 Sep 15;89(4):653-663. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyab250.
3
Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines for management of extracranial cerebrovascular disease.
血管外科学会颅外脑血管疾病管理临床实践指南
J Vasc Surg. 2022 Jan;75(1S):4S-22S. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.04.073. Epub 2021 Jun 19.
4
Early and Long-Term Outcomes of Carotid Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy in Women.女性颈动脉支架置入术和颈动脉内膜切除术的早期及长期预后
Front Surg. 2021 Mar 8;8:646204. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.646204. eCollection 2021.
5
Endarterectomy versus stenting for the prevention of periprocedural stroke or death in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a meta-analysis of 10 randomized trials.内膜切除术与支架置入术预防有症状或无症状颈动脉狭窄患者围手术期卒中或死亡的比较:10项随机试验的荟萃分析
Ann Transl Med. 2021 Feb;9(3):256. doi: 10.21037/atm-20-4620.
6
Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Treatment of Carotid Artery Stenosis.颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄的比较
Stroke. 2021 Jan;52(1):e3-e5. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.030521. Epub 2020 Dec 28.
7
A systematic review and meta-analysis of complication rates after carotid procedures performed by different specialties.不同专业行颈动脉手术后并发症发生率的系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Jul;72(1):335-343.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.11.061. Epub 2020 Mar 2.
8
Carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis.颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄的比较。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Feb 25;2(2):CD000515. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000515.pub5.
9
Carotid Revascularization in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.老年人颈动脉血运重建术:系统评价和荟萃分析。
World Neurosurg. 2019 Jun;126:656-663.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.02.030. Epub 2019 Feb 22.
10
Long-Term Outcomes of Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting When Performed by a Single Vascular Surgeon.由单一血管外科医生实施颈动脉内膜切除术和颈动脉支架置入术的长期结果。
Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2019 Apr;53(3):216-223. doi: 10.1177/1538574418823379. Epub 2019 Jan 6.