...
首页> 外文期刊>Neurologia medico-chirurgica. >Selecting an Appropriate Surgical Treatment Instead of Carotid Artery Stenting Alone According to the Patient’s Risk Factors Contributes to Reduced Perioperative Complications in Patients with Internal Carotid Stenosis: A Single Institutional Retrospective Analysis
【24h】

Selecting an Appropriate Surgical Treatment Instead of Carotid Artery Stenting Alone According to the Patient’s Risk Factors Contributes to Reduced Perioperative Complications in Patients with Internal Carotid Stenosis: A Single Institutional Retrospective Analysis

机译:根据患者的危险因素,选择适当的手术治疗方法代替单独的颈动脉支架置入术,有助于减少内部颈动脉狭窄患者的围手术期并发症:单项机构回顾性分析

获取原文
           

摘要

This retrospective study was aimed to compare the perioperative complications for internal carotid artery stenosis (ICS) in a Japanese single institute between the use of carotid artery stenting (CAS) alone or the use of an appropriate individualized treatment method allowing either carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or CAS based on patient risk factors. Based on the policy at our hospital, only CAS was performed on patients (n = 33) between January 2005 and November 2009. From December 2009 to December 2012, either CEA or CAS (tailored treatment) was selected for patients (n = 61) based on individual patient risk factors. CEA was considered the first-line treatment in all cases. In high-risk CEA cases, CAS was performed instead (n = 11), whereas in low-risk CEA cases, CEA was performed (n = 19). Further, in moderate-risk CEA cases based on own criteria, CAS was considered first, whereas for high-risk CAS cases, CEA was performed (n = 17). For low-risk CAS cases, CAS was performed (n = 9). Perioperative clinical complications (any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 30 days) were compared between both periods. Significantly reduced perioperative complications were observed during the tailored period (4/61 sites, 6.6%) as compared with the CAS period (8/33 sites, 24.2%) [Fisher’s exact test p = 0.022; odds ratio, 4.56 (CAS/tailored); 95% confidence interval, 1.26–16.5]. Selecting an appropriate individualized treatment method according to patient risk factors, as opposed to adhering to a single treatment approach such as CAS, may contribute to improved overall outcomes in patients with ICS.
机译:这项回顾性研究旨在比较一家日本单一机构在单独使用颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)或使用适当的个体化治疗方法(可进行颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA))之间的颈内动脉狭窄(ICS)的围手术期并发症。或CAS,具体取决于患者的危险因素。根据我们医院的政策,在2005年1月至2009年11月之间仅对患者(n = 33)进行了CAS。从2009年12月至2012年12月,为患者(n = 61)选择了CEA或CAS(量身定制的治疗方案)根据患者的个人危险因素。在所有情况下,CEA被认为是一线治疗。在高危CEA病例中,改为进行CAS(n = 11),而在低危CEA病例中,进行CEA(n = 19)。此外,在基于自身标准的中度危险性CEA病例中,首先考虑了CAS,而对于高危性CASA病例,则进行了CEA(n = 17)。对于低风险CAS病例,进行了CAS(n = 9)。比较两个时期的围手术期临床并发症(任何中风,心肌梗塞或30天内死亡)。与CAS期间(8/33个部位,24.2%)相比,在定制期间(4/61个部位,6.6%)观察到围手术期并发症显着减少[Fisher的精确检验,p = 0.022;而在CAS期间,则为5。比值比为4.56(CAS /量身定制); 95%置信区间[1.26-16.5]。与坚持采用单一治疗方法(例如CAS)相反,根据患者风险因素选择合适的个体化治疗方法可能有助于改善ICS患者的总体疗效。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号