Department of Neurosurgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Korea University Medical Center, Ansan Hospital, Ansan, Gyeonggi, South Korea.
Med Sci Monit. 2023 Feb 15;29:e939223. doi: 10.12659/MSM.939223.
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.
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。
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。
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)。
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。