Li Wenkui, Wu Chuyue, Deng Rong, Li Li, Wu Qingyuan, Zhang Lina, Yan Tao, Chen Shengli
Department of Neurology, Chongqing University Three Gorges Hospital, Chongqing, China; School of Medicine, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China.
Department of Neurology, Chongqing University Three Gorges Hospital, Chongqing, China; School of Medicine, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China; Chongqing Municipality Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases, Chongqing University Three Gorges Hospital, Chongqing, China.
World Neurosurg. 2024 Jan;181:e356-e375. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.10.054. Epub 2023 Oct 19.
Current management guidelines for the treatment of carotid stenosis are controversial. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the perioperative safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and endarterectomy.
We systematically searched EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to November 10, 2022, for randomized controlled trials that compared CAS with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) among patients with carotid stenosis. The analyzed outcomes mainly included stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), cranial nerve palsy, the cumulative incidence of mortality, stroke, or MI and the cumulative incidence of death or stroke in the perioperative periods. The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated and pooled. Subgroup analyses were based on whether patients were symptomatic or asymptomatic. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.
Seventeen randomized controlled trials with 12,277 participants (6514 and 5763 in the CAS and CEA groups, respectively) were included. Pooled analysis demonstrated that compared with CEA, CAS was associated with decreased risks of perioperative MI (RR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.29∼0.77) and perioperative cranial nerve palsy (RR = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.01∼0.06) but higher risks of perioperative stroke (RR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.18∼1.87) and cumulative incidence of death or stroke (RR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.20∼1.93).
The perioperative safety was equivalent between CAS and CEA. However, CEA may be preferred when considering both procedural safety and long-term efficacy in preventing recurrent stroke.
目前关于颈动脉狭窄治疗的管理指南存在争议。我们进行了这项荟萃分析,以评估颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)和内膜切除术的围手术期安全性。
我们系统检索了EMBASE、PubMed、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆,检索时间从建库至2022年11月10日,以查找比较CAS与颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)治疗颈动脉狭窄患者的随机对照试验。分析的结局主要包括卒中、死亡、心肌梗死(MI)、脑神经麻痹、围手术期死亡率、卒中或MI的累积发生率以及围手术期死亡或卒中的累积发生率。计算并汇总风险比(RR)和95%置信区间(95%CI)。亚组分析基于患者是否有症状。我们使用推荐分级评估、制定和评价框架评估证据的确定性。
纳入了17项随机对照试验,共12277名参与者(CAS组和CEA组分别为6514名和5763名)。汇总分析表明,与CEA相比,CAS与围手术期MI风险降低(RR = 0.47,95%CI = 0.29∼0.77)和围手术期脑神经麻痹风险降低(RR = 0.02,95%CI = 0.01∼0.06)相关,但围手术期卒中风险更高(RR = 1.48,95%CI = 1.18∼1.87)以及死亡或卒中的累积发生率更高(RR = 1.52,95%CI = 1.20∼1.93)。
CAS和CEA的围手术期安全性相当。然而,在考虑手术安全性和预防复发性卒中的长期疗效时,CEA可能更受青睐。