Carotid endarterectomy compared with carotid artery stenting for extracranial carotid artery stenosis: a retrospective single-centre study

Oğuzhan Birdal, E. Calik, Ümit Arslan, Y. Koza, Uğur Kaya, A. Çolak, M. Hakan Taş
{"title":"Carotid endarterectomy compared with carotid artery stenting for extracranial carotid artery stenosis: a retrospective single-centre study","authors":"Oğuzhan Birdal, E. Calik, Ümit Arslan, Y. Koza, Uğur Kaya, A. Çolak, M. Hakan Taş","doi":"10.37349/en.2023.00027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: One of the main risk factors for an ischemic stroke is significant carotid artery stenosis, and extracranial severe carotid artery stenosis accounts for 20% of ischemic strokes. Prior to the development of carotid artery stenting (CAS), the only effective and reliable treatment for carotid artery stenosis was carotid endarterectomy (CEA). This study compares the results of CAS and CEA in patients with significant carotid artery stenosis.\nMethods: Between 2018 and 2022, hospital records of all patients who underwent carotid artery revascularization at the institution were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups depending on whether CEA or CAS was performed for carotid revascularization. Propensity score matching was performed to reduce bias by equating the baseline clinical characteristics of the groups. To compare 30-day, 1-year, and long-term outcomes, rates of transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction, stroke, all-cause mortality, and composite endpoints were analyzed.\nResults: After PSM, 76 patients each in the CEA and CAS groups were compared. The mean age was 69.80 years ± 11.35 years and 121 (80%) were male. The patients were followed up for a mean of 33 months ± 6 months. The incidence of TIA in the perioperative period [9 (12%) vs. 4 (5%); P < 0.05], TIA and composite endpoint at 1-year period [11 (15%) vs. 2 (3%); P < 0.05 and 27 (36%) vs. 16 (21%); P < 0.05, respectively] were significantly higher in the CAS group than in the CEA group. No difference was observed between the groups in the long-term.\nConclusions: There was no noticeable difference between the CEA and CAS groups in the examination of cases with severe carotid artery stenosis in terms of 1-month, and 1-year results (apart from TIA and composite endpoints), or long-term outcomes. Extracranial carotid artery stenosis can be treated safely and effectively also by CAS.","PeriodicalId":73001,"journal":{"name":"Exploration of neuroscience","volume":"16 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Exploration of neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37349/en.2023.00027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: One of the main risk factors for an ischemic stroke is significant carotid artery stenosis, and extracranial severe carotid artery stenosis accounts for 20% of ischemic strokes. Prior to the development of carotid artery stenting (CAS), the only effective and reliable treatment for carotid artery stenosis was carotid endarterectomy (CEA). This study compares the results of CAS and CEA in patients with significant carotid artery stenosis. Methods: Between 2018 and 2022, hospital records of all patients who underwent carotid artery revascularization at the institution were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups depending on whether CEA or CAS was performed for carotid revascularization. Propensity score matching was performed to reduce bias by equating the baseline clinical characteristics of the groups. To compare 30-day, 1-year, and long-term outcomes, rates of transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction, stroke, all-cause mortality, and composite endpoints were analyzed. Results: After PSM, 76 patients each in the CEA and CAS groups were compared. The mean age was 69.80 years ± 11.35 years and 121 (80%) were male. The patients were followed up for a mean of 33 months ± 6 months. The incidence of TIA in the perioperative period [9 (12%) vs. 4 (5%); P < 0.05], TIA and composite endpoint at 1-year period [11 (15%) vs. 2 (3%); P < 0.05 and 27 (36%) vs. 16 (21%); P < 0.05, respectively] were significantly higher in the CAS group than in the CEA group. No difference was observed between the groups in the long-term. Conclusions: There was no noticeable difference between the CEA and CAS groups in the examination of cases with severe carotid artery stenosis in terms of 1-month, and 1-year results (apart from TIA and composite endpoints), or long-term outcomes. Extracranial carotid artery stenosis can be treated safely and effectively also by CAS.
颈动脉内膜剥脱术与颈动脉支架植入术治疗颅外颈动脉狭窄的比较:一项回顾性单中心研究
目的:缺血性脑卒中的主要危险因素之一是颈动脉明显狭窄,颅外重度颈动脉狭窄占缺血性脑卒中的20%。在颈动脉支架植入术(CAS)问世之前,颈动脉狭窄唯一有效、可靠的治疗方法是颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)。本研究比较了CAS和CEA对颈动脉明显狭窄患者的治疗效果:2018年至2022年间,对该院接受颈动脉血运重建术的所有患者的住院病历进行回顾性分析。根据颈动脉血运重建是实施CEA还是CAS,将患者分为两组。为了减少偏差,对两组患者的基线临床特征进行了倾向评分匹配。为了比较30天、1年和长期结果,对短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)、心肌梗死、中风、全因死亡率和复合终点进行了分析:PSM后,CEA组和CAS组各76名患者进行了比较。平均年龄为 69.80 岁 ± 11.35 岁,121 人(80%)为男性。患者的平均随访时间为(33 个月± 6 个月)。CAS组围手术期的TIA发生率[9 (12%) vs. 4 (5%);P < 0.05]、TIA发生率和1年后的综合终点[分别为11 (15%) vs. 2 (3%);P < 0.05和27 (36%) vs. 16 (21%);P < 0.05]明显高于CEA组。结论:结论:在对严重颈动脉狭窄病例的检查中,CEA组和CAS组在1个月、1年结果(TIA和综合终点除外)和长期结果方面没有明显差异。颅外颈动脉狭窄也可以通过 CAS 得到安全有效的治疗。
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