首页> 外文期刊>World neurosurgery >Carotid Artery Endarterectomy versus Carotid Artery Stenting for Restenosis After Carotid Artery Endarterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
【24h】

Carotid Artery Endarterectomy versus Carotid Artery Stenting for Restenosis After Carotid Artery Endarterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

机译:颈动脉埋下切除术与颈动脉埋下膜切除术后再狭窄的颈动脉栓塞:系统审查和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

ObjectiveCarotid artery restenosis may occur after ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The aim of this study was to determine whether carotid artery stenting (CAS) or redo CEA is the optimal treatment for postendarterectomy carotid restenosis. MethodsEligible studies for meta-analysis were identified through a search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane up to July 20, 2017. A meta-analysis was conducted with the use of random effects modeling.I2was used to assess for heterogeneity. ResultsThirteen studies comprising 4163 patients were included. Risk for any type of cranial nerve injury was higher in the redo CEA group (odds ratio?= 13.61; 95% confidence interval, 5.43–34.16;I2?= 3.3%). Periprocedural and/or short-term (within 30 days) stroke, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, temporary cranial nerve injury, and death rates were similar between the 2 revascularization approaches. During median follow-up of 28 months, CAS was associated with significantly lower risk for long-term recurrent carotid artery restenosis when defined as stenosis >60% (odds ratio?= 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.13–4.12;I2?= 0%) or >70% (odds ratio?= 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.13–4.72;I2?= 0%). No difference was identified in long-term target lesion revascularization rates between redo CEA and CAS. ConclusionsPatients with carotid restenosis after CEA can safely undergo both CAS and CEA with similar risks of periprocedural stroke, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and death. However, patients treated with CAS have a lower risk for a new restenosis and periprocedural cranial nerve injury.
机译:在IpsilateLal颈动脉内切除术(CEA)后可能发生客观arotid动脉再狭窄。本研究的目的是确定颈动脉支架(CAS)还是重做CEA是术后颈动脉骨折的最佳处理。通过搜索2017年7月20日的Pubmed,Scopus和Cochrane来确定Methods Serification荟萃分析的研究。使用随机效应模型进行了META分析.I2WAS用于评估异质性。包括4163例患者的结果患有亚太糖尿病研究。 REDO CEA组的任何类型颅神经损伤的风险较高(差距率?= 13.61; 95%置信区间,5.43-34.16; I2?= 3.3%)。在2种血运重建方法之间,血管性和/或短期(30天内)中风,短暂性缺血攻击,心肌梗塞,临时颅神经损伤和死亡率相似。在28个月的中间后续后期,CAS与长期复发性颈动脉恢复的风险显着降低,当被定义为狭窄> 60%时(odds比率?= 2.16; 95%置信区间,1.13-4.12; I2?= 0%)或> 70%(差距α= 2.31; 95%置信区间,1.13-4.72; I2?= 0%)。在重做CEA和CAS之间的长期目标病变血运重建率中没有差异。结论CEA后颈动脉再狭窄可以安全地接受CAS和CEA,具有类似的群体中风,短暂性缺血性发作,心肌梗塞和死亡。然而,对CAS治疗的患者具有较低的新重新狭窄和颅脑颅神经损伤的风险较低。

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