...
首页> 外文期刊>Herz >Aktuelle Leitlinien zum Karotis-Stenting
【24h】

Aktuelle Leitlinien zum Karotis-Stenting

机译:当前颈动脉支架置入指南

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Scientific data underlying current guidelines on treatment of carotid artery stenosis is subject to interdisciplinary discussion. In particular selective weighting of the randomized European studies leads to conflicting levels of recommendation and levels of evidence, especially when directly comparing guidelines under surgical versus endovascular guidance. Surgical guidelines recommend a limitation of carotid artery stenting (CAS) to symptomatic patients with specific surgical/anatomical disadvantages and/or severe comorbidities. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend the use of CAS only in patients at increased surgical risk but at the same time requires morbidity and mortality rates comparable to those of surgical interventions. Even one step further, the American guidelines and specifically the associated comments of the German Society of Cardiology on the above mentioned ESC guidelines put CAS and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) on a par in terms of treatment alternatives, presupposing analogous CEA complication rates. Differential interpretation of the so far inadequate data is a common issue of current evidence-based medicine. The difficulty in conceptualization of new studies concerning the therapy of carotid stenosis lies in the funding these large projects and also on the high patient number required to achieve adequate statistical power. Furthermore, during the estimated long study period substantial changes of current techniques and devices can be anticipated which might render the study results in part outdated by the time of publication. However, as long as no new randomized study results comparing medical, surgical and interventional treatment of carotid stenosis are available, the question on the optimal therapy for patients with carotid artery disease remains unanswered.
机译:目前有关颈动脉狭窄治疗指南的科学数据尚待跨学科讨论。特别是,对欧洲随机研究的选择性加权导致推荐水平和证据水平相互矛盾,尤其是在直接比较手术与血管内指导下的指导时。手术指南建议对有特定手术/解剖学缺陷和/或严重合并症的有症状患者限制颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)。欧洲心脏病学会(ESC)指南建议仅在手术风险增加的患者中使用CAS,但同时要求其发病率和死亡率与外科手术相当。再往前走一步,美国指南,特别是德国心脏病学会对上述ESC指南的相关评论,在CASA和颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)方面,在治疗选择上均处于同等水平,前提是类似的CEA并发症发生率。迄今为止,数据不足的差异解释是当前循证医学的普遍问题。关于颈动脉狭窄治疗的新研究在概念上的困难在于为这些大型项目提供资金,也在于获得足够的统计能力所需的高患者人数。此外,在预计的较长研究期间内,可以预期当前技术和设备的重大变化,这可能会使研究结果在出版时已部分过时。但是,只要没有关于颈动脉狭窄的内科,外科和介入治疗的新随机研究结果可用,关于颈动脉疾病患者最佳治疗的问题仍未得到解答。

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