Suppr超能文献

颈动脉疾病患者的经颈动脉血管重建术与颈动脉内膜切除术:30天结局的系统评价和荟萃分析

Trans-Carotid Artery Revascularization Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Patients With Carotid Artery Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 30-day Outcomes.

作者信息

Loufopoulos Georgios, Manaki Vasiliki, Tasoudis Panagiotis, Karela Nina-Rafailia, Sénéchaud Christophe, Giannopoulos Argirios, Ktenidis Kiriakos, Spanos Konstantinos

机构信息

Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery Working Group, Society of Junior Doctors, Athens, Greece.

Department of Surgery, Jura Bernois Hospital, Saint Imier, Switzerland.

出版信息

Angiology. 2024 Mar 27:33197241241788. doi: 10.1177/00033197241241788.

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared trans-carotid artery revascularization (TCAR) as an alternative approach to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with carotid artery disease. An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases including comparative studies with patients who underwent either TCAR or CEA. This meta-analysis is according to the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. Eight studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 7,606 and 7,048 patients in the TCAR and CEA groups, respectively. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-1.56, = .81) and stroke (OR: 0.92, 95%CI 0.70-1.22, = .57) were similar between the two groups, with low heterogeneity. The odds of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.18-2.71, = .01) and cranial nerve injury were significantly higher in patients undergoing CEA compared with TCAR (OR: 4.11, 95% CI: 2.59-6.51, < .001). The subgroup analysis according to symptomatic pre-intervention status revealed no statistically significant difference regarding 30-day mortality (symptomatic OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.40-2.07, = .82, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.46-1.86, = .83) and stroke (symptomatic OR: 0.88, 95% CI:0.47-1.64, = .68, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.64-1.35, = .70). TCAR offers an alternative treatment for patients with carotid artery stenosis with comparable to CEA mortality and stroke rates during a 30-day post-operative period.

摘要

本系统评价和荟萃分析比较了经颈动脉血管重建术(TCAR)作为颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)的替代方法用于治疗颈动脉疾病患者的效果。使用PubMed、Scopus和Cochrane数据库进行了电子检索,纳入了对接受TCAR或CEA治疗的患者进行比较的研究。本荟萃分析遵循PRISMA声明的建议。八项研究符合我们的纳入标准,TCAR组和CEA组分别纳入了7606例和7048例患者。两组的30天死亡率(比值比[OR]:0.94,95%置信区间[CI]:0.56 - 1.56,P = 0.81)和卒中发生率(OR:0.92,95%CI 0.70 - 1.22,P = 0.57)相似,异质性较低。与TCAR相比,接受CEA治疗的患者发生心肌梗死的几率(OR:1.79,95%CI:1.18 - 2.71,P = 0.01)和颅神经损伤的几率显著更高(OR:4.11,95%CI:2.59 - 6.51,P < 0.001)。根据干预前症状状态进行的亚组分析显示,在30天死亡率(有症状者OR:0.91,95%CI:0.40 - 2.07,P = 0.82,无症状者OR:0.93,95%CI:0.46 - 1.86,P = 0.83)和卒中发生率(有症状者OR:0.88,95%CI:0.47 - 1.64, P = 0.68,无症状者OR:0.93,95%CI:0.64 - 1.35,P = 0.70)方面无统计学显著差异。在术后30天内,TCAR为颈动脉狭窄患者提供了一种替代治疗方法,其死亡率和卒中发生率与CEA相当。

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