Valaki Panagiota, Moulakakis Konstantinos G, Mylonas Spyridon, Karathanos Christos, Batzalexis Konstantinos, Giannoukas Athanasios
Department of Cardiology, General Hospital of Karditsa, Karditsa, Greece.
Department of Vascular Surgery, Athens University Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2025 Aug;59(6):641-653. doi: 10.1177/15385744251330930. Epub 2025 Mar 29.
Background and AimThe aim of this study is to estimate the incidence of periprocedural outcomes after carotid revascularization with special emphasis on myocardial infarction and assess the safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) through systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsA multiple electronic search was performed in Medline (database provider PubMed), Web of Science Core Collection, EMBASE (database provider Ovid) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for articles from 2000 up to 2023 reporting outcomes after carotid revascularization. Randomized control trials comparing the perioperative events (30-day results) after CAS and CEA stating the perioperative risk of myocardial infarction were included in the present meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.ResultsA total of twelve randomized control trials (RCTs) with 11 153 patients were identified and considered eligible. The pooled risk of periprocedural stroke was found to be reduced after CEA compared to CAS [OR: 1.6, CI 95%:1.3-2.1, < 0.05], while PMI was found to be more frequent after CEA, favoring CAS [OR: 0.4, CI 95%: 0.2-0.7, < 0.05]. Periprocedural mortality was lower but not reaching statistical significance in the CEA compared to CAS [OR: 1.1, CI 95%: 0.6-2.1, = 0.68]. The pooled OR for composite endpoint of stroke, MI or death was in favor of CEA as safer treatment [OR: 1.3, CI 95%: 1-1.5, < 0.05].ConclusionsPMI risk was lower after CAS, although the currently available data do not demonstrate any increase in mortality rates.
背景与目的
本研究旨在评估颈动脉血运重建术后围手术期结局的发生率,特别关注心肌梗死,并通过系统评价和荟萃分析评估颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)和颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)的安全性。
方法
在Medline(数据库提供商PubMed)、科学网核心合集、EMBASE(数据库提供商Ovid)和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库数据库中进行多次电子检索,以查找2000年至2023年期间报告颈动脉血运重建术后结局的文章。根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目指南,本荟萃分析纳入了比较CAS和CEA术后围手术期事件(30天结果)并说明围手术期心肌梗死风险的随机对照试验。
结果
共识别并认为12项随机对照试验(RCT)、11153例患者符合条件。与CAS相比,CEA术后围手术期卒中的合并风险降低[比值比(OR):1.6,95%置信区间(CI):1.3 - 2.1,P < 0.05],而CEA术后围手术期心肌梗死(PMI)更常见,支持CAS[OR:0.4,95%CI:0.2 - 0.7,P < 0.05]。与CAS相比,CEA术后围手术期死亡率较低,但未达到统计学意义[OR:1.1,95%CI:0.6 - 2.1,P = 0.68]。卒中、心肌梗死或死亡复合终点的合并OR支持CEA作为更安全的治疗方法[OR:1.3,95%CI:1 - 1.5,P < 0.05]。
结论
CAS术后PMI风险较低,尽管目前可得的数据未显示死亡率有任何增加。