首页> 外文期刊>JACC. Cardiovascular interventions >Carotid artery stenting for recurrent carotid artery restenosis after previous ipsilateral carotid artery endarterectomy or stenting: A report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry
【24h】

Carotid artery stenting for recurrent carotid artery restenosis after previous ipsilateral carotid artery endarterectomy or stenting: A report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

机译:颈动脉支架置入术可用于先前同侧颈动脉内膜切除术或支架置入术后复发性颈动脉再狭窄:国家心血管数据注册中心的报告

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare outcomes of patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) for ipsilateral restenosis, after either previous CAS or carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) (CAS-R group), with those of patients who had CAS performed for de novo carotid atherosclerotic stenosis (CAS-DN group). Background Therapeutic revascularization strategies to reduce stroke include CAS and CEA. Limited data exist concerning the outcomes of CAS in the setting of previous ipsilateral carotid revascularization. Methods Patients enrolled in the CARE (Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy) registry who underwent CAS were identified and separated into 2 groups: those undergoing CAS after previous ipsilateral CEA or CAS (CAS-R group, n = 1,996) and those who had CAS performed for de novo atherosclerotic carotid stenosis (CAS-DN group, n = 10,122). We analyzed the clinical and procedural factors associated with CAS-R and CAS-DN between January 1, 2005, and October 8, 2012. Propensity score matching using 19 clinical and 9 procedural characteristics was used, yielding 1,756 patients in each CAS cohort. Results The primary endpoint composite of in-hospital death or stroke or myocardial infarction (MI) occurred less often in the CAS-R compared with CAS-DN patients (1.9% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.019). In-hospital adverse cerebrovascular events (stroke or transient ischemic attack) occurred less frequently in the CAS-R cohort (2.2% vs. 3.6%; p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the composite of death, stroke, or MI at 30 days between both groups. Conclusions Patients who underwent CAS for restenosis after previous ipsilateral revascularization had lower periprocedural adverse event rates and comparable 30-day adverse event rates compared with CAS for de novo carotid artery stenosis.
机译:目的这项研究的目的是评估和比较接受既往CAS或接受颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)的同侧再狭窄患者接受颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)的结果与接受CAS的患者的结局进行从头颈动脉粥样硬化狭窄(CAS-DN组)。背景技术减少卒中的治疗性血运重建策略包括CAS和CEA。关于CAS在先前同侧颈动脉血运重建中的结局的数据有限。方法选入接受CAS的CARE(颈动脉血运重建术和动脉内膜切除术)登记的患者,并将其分为两组:既往同侧CEA或CAS后接受CAS的患者(CAS-R组,n = 1,996)和接受CAS的患者用于从头开始的动脉粥样硬化性颈动脉狭窄(CAS-DN组,n = 10,122)。我们分析了2005年1月1日至2012年10月8日期间与CAS-R和CAS-DN相关的临床和程序因素。使用19种临床特征和9种程序特征进行倾向评分匹配,每个CAS队列产生1756例患者。结果与CAS-DN患者相比,CAS-R患者院内死亡或中风或心肌梗塞(MI)的主要终点事件发生率较低(1.9%比3.2%; p = 0.019)。在CAS-R队列中,院内不良脑血管事件(中风或短暂性脑缺血发作)的发生频率较低(2.2%对3.6%; p <0.001)。但是,两组在30天时的死亡,中风或心肌梗死的综合症状之间没有显着差异。结论与先前进行颈总动脉狭窄的患者相比,先前在同侧血运重建后接受CAS进行再狭窄的患者的围手术期不良事件发生率较低,并且30天的不良事件发生率与CAS相当。

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