CEA vs stent in patients with acute strokes: are they equally effective?

X. Caliste, A. Laser, R. Darling
{"title":"CEA vs stent in patients with acute strokes: are they equally effective?","authors":"X. Caliste, A. Laser, R. Darling","doi":"10.23736/S0021-9509.19.11137-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION\nStroke is the 3rd leading cause of death worldwide with 15 million strokes annually. Extracranial carotid stenosis contributes to major stroke morbidity and mortality as a significant etiology of ischemic strokes. For acute stroke, in addition to optimal medical management, patients may be candidates for carotid endarterectomy and/or carotid stenting for secondary stroke reduction. This paper set out to review the data currently available regarding equivalency of the two intervention options.\n\n\nEVIDENCE ACQUISITION\nA comprehensive literature review was performed through PubMed and other sources using the key words carotid endarterectomy, carotid artery stent, acute stroke, symptomatic carotid stenosis, flow reversal, TCAR. Studies which solely evaluated patients with asymptomatic disease were ineligible for the study.\n\n\nEVIDENCE SYNTHESIS\nReview of landmark trials such as NASCET and CREST in addition to more recent studies demonstrates the effectiveness of surgical management with carotid endarterectomy of acute stroke. Carotid stenting has also been shown to have acceptable outcomes in certain patient populations.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nCarotid endarterectomy continues to demonstrate effectiveness and safety for management of acute strokes, while carotid stenting has limitations. Carotid artery stenting has been shown to be non-inferior in some patient populations, but more recent and future technologic developments may expand the potential acceptable patient selection criteria.","PeriodicalId":101333,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of cardiovascular surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of cardiovascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0021-9509.19.11137-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Stroke is the 3rd leading cause of death worldwide with 15 million strokes annually. Extracranial carotid stenosis contributes to major stroke morbidity and mortality as a significant etiology of ischemic strokes. For acute stroke, in addition to optimal medical management, patients may be candidates for carotid endarterectomy and/or carotid stenting for secondary stroke reduction. This paper set out to review the data currently available regarding equivalency of the two intervention options. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A comprehensive literature review was performed through PubMed and other sources using the key words carotid endarterectomy, carotid artery stent, acute stroke, symptomatic carotid stenosis, flow reversal, TCAR. Studies which solely evaluated patients with asymptomatic disease were ineligible for the study. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Review of landmark trials such as NASCET and CREST in addition to more recent studies demonstrates the effectiveness of surgical management with carotid endarterectomy of acute stroke. Carotid stenting has also been shown to have acceptable outcomes in certain patient populations. CONCLUSIONS Carotid endarterectomy continues to demonstrate effectiveness and safety for management of acute strokes, while carotid stenting has limitations. Carotid artery stenting has been shown to be non-inferior in some patient populations, but more recent and future technologic developments may expand the potential acceptable patient selection criteria.
急性中风患者CEA与支架治疗:是否同样有效?
中风是世界上第三大死亡原因,每年有1500万人中风。颅外颈动脉狭窄是缺血性脑卒中的重要病因之一。对于急性卒中,除了最佳的医疗管理外,患者可能是颈动脉内膜切除术和/或颈动脉支架置入术的候选人,以减少继发性卒中。本文旨在回顾目前可获得的关于两种干预方案等效性的数据。证据获取通过PubMed等来源,以颈动脉内膜切除术、颈动脉支架、急性卒中、症状性颈动脉狭窄、血流逆转、TCAR为关键词,进行全面的文献综述。仅评估无症状患者的研究不符合本研究的条件。证据综合:回顾具有里程碑意义的试验,如NASCET和CREST,以及最近的研究,证明了手术治疗急性卒中颈动脉内膜切除术的有效性。在某些患者群体中,颈动脉支架置入术也显示出可接受的结果。结论颈动脉内膜切除术治疗急性脑卒中的有效性和安全性持续得到证实,而颈动脉支架置入术存在局限性。颈动脉支架植入术在一些患者群体中是非劣势的,但最近和未来的技术发展可能会扩大潜在的可接受的患者选择标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信