• 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

颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄围手术期安全性的比较:一项随机对照试验的Meta分析

Comparison of Perioperative Safety of Carotid Artery Stenting and Endarterectomy in the Treatment of Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

作者信息

Li Wenkui, Wu Chuyue, Deng Rong, Li Li, Wu Qingyuan, Zhang Lina, Yan Tao, Chen Shengli

机构信息

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.

出版信息

World Neurosurg. 2024 Jan;181:e356-e375. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.10.054. Epub 2023 Oct 19.

DOI:10.1016/j.wneu.2023.10.054
PMID:37863425
Abstract

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

摘要

背景

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。

方法

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。

结果

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)。

结论

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。

相似文献

1
Comparison of Perioperative Safety of Carotid Artery Stenting and Endarterectomy in the Treatment of Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄围手术期安全性的比较:一项随机对照试验的Meta分析
World Neurosurg. 2024 Jan;181:e356-e375. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.10.054. Epub 2023 Oct 19.
2
Carotid Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗无症状性颈动脉狭窄的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Stroke. 2022 Oct;53(10):3047-3054. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.122.038994. Epub 2022 Jun 22.
3
Efficacy and safety of stenting for elderly patients with severe and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis: a critical meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.老年重度症状性颈动脉狭窄患者支架置入术的疗效与安全性:随机对照试验的关键荟萃分析
Clin Interv Aging. 2015 Oct 28;10:1733-42. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S91721. eCollection 2015.
4
Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy for Treatment of Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis.颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗无症状性颈动脉狭窄的比较
Int Heart J. 2018 May 30;59(3):550-558. doi: 10.1536/ihj.17-312. Epub 2018 May 20.
5
Safety of Stenting and Endarterectomy for Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.无症状性颈动脉狭窄患者支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术的安全性:一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018 May;55(5):614-624. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.02.020. Epub 2018 Mar 17.
6
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.
7
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.
8
Endarterectomy achieves lower stroke and death rates compared with stenting in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis.对于无症状性颈动脉狭窄患者,与支架置入术相比,动脉内膜切除术可降低中风和死亡率。
J Vasc Surg. 2017 Aug;66(2):607-617. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.04.053.
9
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.
10
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.

引用本文的文献

1
Management and Treatment of Carotid Stenosis: Overview of Therapeutic Possibilities and Comparison Between Interventional Radiology, Surgery and Hybrid Procedure.颈动脉狭窄的管理与治疗:治疗选择概述及介入放射学、外科手术与杂交手术的比较
Diagnostics (Basel). 2025 Jul 1;15(13):1679. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics15131679.
2
Safety and efficacy of early carotid artery stenting in patients with symptomatic stenosis.有症状性狭窄患者早期颈动脉支架置入术的安全性和有效性。
Interv Neuroradiol. 2024 Mar 22:15910199241239204. doi: 10.1177/15910199241239204.