首页> 外文期刊>Journal of vascular surgery >Contralateral occlusion is not a clinically important reason for choosing carotid artery stenting for patients with significant carotid artery stenosis
【24h】

Contralateral occlusion is not a clinically important reason for choosing carotid artery stenting for patients with significant carotid artery stenosis

机译:对侧闭塞不是颈动脉狭窄患者选择颈动脉支架的临床重要原因

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Objective: Contralateral carotid artery occlusion by itself carries an increased risk of stroke. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the presence of contralateral carotid artery occlusion has high reported rates of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Our objective was to determine if there is a clinical benefit to patients who receive carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared to CEA in the presence of contralateral carotid artery occlusion. Methods: We conducted a retrospective medical chart review over a 4.5-year institutional experience of persons with contralateral carotid artery occlusion and ipsilateral carotid artery stenosis who underwent CAS or CEA. The main outcome measures were 30-day cardiac, stroke, and mortality rate, and midterm mortality. Results: Of a total of 713 patients treated for carotid artery stenosis during this time period, 57 had contralateral occlusion (~8%). Thirty-nine of these patients were treated with CAS, and 18 with CEA. The most common indications for CAS were prior neck surgery (18), contralateral internal carotid occlusion (nine), and prior neck radiation (seven). The average age was 70 ± 8.5 for CEA and 66.7 ± 9.3 for CAS (P =.20). Both groups were predominantly men (CEA 12 of 18; CAS 28 of 39; P =.76), with similar prevalence of symptomatic lesions (CEA 8 of 18, CAS 20 of 39; P =.77). Two patients died within 30 days in the CAS group (5%). No deaths occurred within 30 days in the CEA group (P =.50); the mortality rate for CAS and CEA combined was 3.5%. No perioperative strokes or myocardial infarction occurred in either group. Two transient ischemic attacks occurred after CAS. At mean follow-up of 29.4 ± 16 months (CEA) and 28 ± 14.4 months (CAS; range, 1.5-48.5 months), seven deaths occurred in the CAS group and one in the CEA group (17.9% vs 5.5%; P =.40). There were two reinterventions in the CAS group for in-stent restenosis and there were no reoperations in the CEA group. Conclusions: Although CEA and CAS can both be performed with good perioperative results and acceptable midterm mortality, the observed outcomes do not support use of contralateral carotid artery occlusion as a selection criterion for CAS over CEA in the absence of other indications.
机译:目的:对侧颈动脉阻塞本身会增加中风的风险。有对侧颈动脉闭塞的颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)在围手术期发病率和死亡率方面的报道率很高。我们的目标是确定在存在对侧颈动脉阻塞的情况下,与CEA相比,接受颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)的患者是否具有临床益处。方法:我们对接受CAS或CEA的对侧颈动脉阻塞和同侧颈动脉狭窄患者的4.5年机构经验进行了回顾性医学图表审查。主要结局指标为30天心脏,中风,死亡率和中期死亡率。结果:在此期间,总共713例接受颈动脉狭窄治疗的患者中,有57例发生了对侧阻塞(〜8%)。这些患者中有39例接受CAS治疗,18例接受CEA治疗。 CAS最常见的适应症是先前的颈部手术(18),对侧颈内动脉闭塞(9)和先前的颈部放射(7)。 CEA的平均年龄为70±8.5,CAS的平均年龄为66.7±9.3(P = .20)。两组均以男性为主(CEA 12为18; CAS 28为39; P = .76),症状性病变的患病率相似(CEA 8为18,CAS 20为39; P = .77)。 CAS组在30天内有2例患者死亡(5%)。 CEA组在30天内未发生死亡(P = .50); CAS和CEA的总死亡率为3.5%。两组均未发生围手术期中风或心肌梗塞。 CAS后发生两次短暂性脑缺血发作。平均随访29.4±16个月(CEA)和28±14.4个月(CAS;范围1.5-48.5个月),CAS组发生7例死亡,CEA组发生1例死亡(17.9%vs 5.5%; P = .40)。 CAS组中有两次因支架内再狭窄而进行的再干预,而CEA组没有再手术。结论:尽管CEA和CAS均可在围手术期取得良好的结果,中期死亡率也可以接受,但是在没有其他适应症的情况下,观察到的结果并不支持使用对侧颈动脉闭塞作为CEA的选择标准。

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