首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the Neurological Sciences: Official Bulletin of the World Federation of Neurology >Carotid angioplasty with or without stenting versus carotid endarterectomy for carotid artery stenosis: A meta-analysis.
【24h】

Carotid angioplasty with or without stenting versus carotid endarterectomy for carotid artery stenosis: A meta-analysis.

机译:有或没有支架的颈动脉血管成形术与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄的荟萃分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Carotid angioplasty with or without stent placement (CAS) has emerged as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for revascularization of severe carotid artery stenosis in patients with high risk for surgery. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of both treatments from data for previous randomized trials. We did a literature search using Medline, PubMed, Cochrane database, and relevant articles for randomized trials comparing CAS with CEA. A meta-analysis using both random-effects and fixed-effects models compared outcome events of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and cranial nerve injury at 30 days, 6 months, or 1 year after procedure. A total of nine trials involving 3138 patients (1564, CEA; 1574, CAS) with symptomatic or asymptomatic stenosis were included for analysis. By random-effects model, there was no significant difference of event rates between treatments for any stroke (odds ratio for CAS [95% confidence interval], 1.46 [0.91-2.36]), death or any stroke (1.37 [0.90-2.10]), or death, any stroke, or myocardial infarction (1.02 [0.49-2.11]) at 30-day, and death and any stroke at 6 months (1.50 [0.69-3.23]) or 1 year (1.25 [0.59-2.63]). But, there were significantly higher 30-day event rates after CAS than CEA for death or any stroke (1.37 [1.04-1.81]) by fix-effects model, accompanied with significant heterogeneity (p=0.04). Risk of cranial nerve injury was much lower in CAS than in CEA (0.12 [0.05-0.29]). Except for lower risk of cranial nerve injury, CAS is neither safer nor associated with a better short-term outcome as compared to CEA in treating carotid artery stenosis.
机译:在有高手术风险的患者中,伴有或不伴有支架置入术(CAS)的颈动脉血管成形术已成为颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)的替代方法,可用于严重颈动脉狭窄的血运重建。这项荟萃分析从以前的随机试验数据中比较了两种治疗的有效性和安全性。我们使用Medline,PubMed,Cochrane数据库和相关文章进行了文献检索,以比较CAS与CEA。使用随机效应和固定效应模型的荟萃分析比较了术后30天,6个月或1年时死亡,中风,心肌梗塞和颅神经损伤的预后事件。总共包括9项试验,涉及3138例有症状或无症状狭窄的患者(1564例,CEA; 1574例,CAS)进行分析。根据随机效应模型,对于任何卒中(CAS [95%置信区间],1.46 [0.91-2.36]),死亡或任何卒中(1.37 [0.90-2.10]),治疗之间的事件发生率之间均无显着差异。 ),或在30天时死亡,任何中风或心肌梗死(1.02 [0.49-2.11]),以及在6个月(1.50 [0.69-3.23])或1年(1.25 [0.59-2.63])时死亡和任何中风)。但是,根据固定效应模型,CAS术后30天的死亡或任何中风事件发生率显着高于CEA(1.37 [1.04-1.81]),并伴有明显的异质性(p = 0.04)。 CAS颅神经损伤的风险远低于CEA(0.12 [0.05-0.29])。与CEA相比,在治疗颈动脉狭窄方面,除了颅神经损伤的风险较低之外,CAS既不安全也不具有更好的短期预后。

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