Camerotte Raphael, Vilardo Marina, Ribeiro Filipe Virgilio, Bocanegra-Becerra Jhon E, Gonçalves Ocilio Ribeiro, Paleare Luis, Dominici Saul, Corvelo Arthur Parke C, Fukunaga Christian Ken, Mitre Lucas Pari, Sobral Thierry, Ferreira Marcio Yuri, Ferreira Christian, Gordon David, Langer David, Serulle Yafell
Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
School of Medicine, Catholic University of Brasilia, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Interv Neuroradiol. 2024 Dec 10:15910199241304164. doi: 10.1177/15910199241304164.
The optimal treatment for carotid free-floating thrombus (CFFT) remains uncertain due to limited evidence, with no randomized clinical trials and scarce guidelines, such as ESVS 2023, favoring conservative management. Anticoagulation (ACT) and antiplatelet (APT) therapies are emerging as promising alternatives to high-risk surgical interventions. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ACT and APT therapies for CFFT.
A systematic search was performed across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. Safety and efficacy endpoints were assessed. A two-sample -test compared baseline characteristics between groups, and a Chi-square test evaluated differences in categorical variables. Statistical significance was set at < 0.05. Data were analyzed using R 4.3.0 with the meta package v.7.0-0.
Four studies met the inclusion criteria, involving 170 patients diagnosed with CFFT. The APT group included 96 patients (mean age 55.35 ± 13.52 years; 56.25% male), and the ACT group included 74 patients (mean age 58.57 ± 14.28 years; 51.35% male). Thrombus regression was slightly lower in APT (42%) compared to ACT (48%). Both groups showed similar rates of residual stenosis. Antiplatelet had fewer ischemic events within 30 days (none vs. 4% in ACT) and lower intracranial hemorrhage rates (3.3% vs. 5.4% in ACT) but higher mortality (6.3% vs. none in ACT).
Both ACT and APT are effective for managing CFFT, each with distinct efficacy and safety profiles. However, randomized trials are necessary to better assess these therapies in CFFT management.
由于证据有限,颈动脉游离血栓(CFFT)的最佳治疗方案仍不确定,尚无随机临床试验,且像2023年欧洲血管外科学会(ESVS)这样的指南也很少支持保守治疗。抗凝(ACT)和抗血小板(APT)治疗正成为高风险手术干预的有前景的替代方案。本系统评价旨在评估ACT和APT治疗CFFT的安全性和有效性。
在PubMed、Embase、科学网和Cochrane数据库中进行系统检索。评估安全性和有效性终点。采用两样本t检验比较组间基线特征,采用卡方检验评估分类变量的差异。设定统计学显著性为P<0.05。使用R 4.3.0和meta包v.7.0-0分析数据。
四项研究符合纳入标准,涉及170例诊断为CFFT的患者。APT组包括96例患者(平均年龄55.35±13.52岁;男性占56.25%),ACT组包括74例患者(平均年龄58.57±14.28岁;男性占51.35%)。与ACT组(48%)相比,APT组的血栓消退率略低(42%)。两组的残余狭窄率相似。抗血小板治疗在30天内的缺血事件较少(无事件发生vs ACT组的4%),颅内出血率较低(3.3% vs ACT组的5.4%),但死亡率较高(6.3% vs ACT组无死亡)。
ACT和APT治疗CFFT均有效,各有不同的疗效和安全性特征。然而,需要进行随机试验以更好地评估这些治疗方法在CFFT管理中的效果。