Patches of different types for carotid patch angioplasty.

Saritphat Orrapin, Thoetphum Benyakorn, Dominic Pj Howard, Boonying Siribumrungwong, Kittipan Rerkasem
{"title":"Patches of different types for carotid patch angioplasty.","authors":"Saritphat Orrapin,&nbsp;Thoetphum Benyakorn,&nbsp;Dominic Pj Howard,&nbsp;Boonying Siribumrungwong,&nbsp;Kittipan Rerkasem","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD000071.pub4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Extracranial carotid artery stenosis is the major cause of stroke, which can lead to disability and mortality. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with carotid patch angioplasty is the most popular technique for reducing the risk of stroke. Patch material may be made from an autologous vein, bovine pericardium, or synthetic material including polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), Dacron, polyurethane, and polyester. This is an update of a review that was first published in 1996 and was last updated in 2010.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the safety and efficacy of different types of patch materials used in carotid patch angioplasty. The primary hypothesis was that a synthetic material was associated with lower risk of patch rupture versus venous patches, but that venous patches were associated with lower risk of perioperative stroke and early or late infection, or both.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched 25 May 2020); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 4), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1966 to 25 May 2020); Embase (1980 to 25 May 2020); the Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings (1980 to 2019); the Web of Science Core Collection; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal. We handsearched relevant journals and conference proceedings, checked reference lists, and contacted experts in the field.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>Randomised and quasi-randomised trials (RCTs) comparing one type of carotid patch with another for CEA.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias, and trial quality; extracted data; and determined the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcomes, for example, perioperative ipsilateral stroke and long-term ipsilateral stroke (at least one year), were collected and analysed.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included 14 trials involving a total of 2278 CEAs with patch closure operations: seven trials compared vein closure with PTFE closure, five compared Dacron grafts with other synthetic materials, and two compared bovine pericardium with other synthetic materials. In most trials, a patient could be randomised twice and could have each carotid artery randomised to different treatment groups. Synthetic patch compared with vein patch angioplasty Vein patch may have little to no difference in effect on perioperative ipsilateral stroke between synthetic versus vein materials, but the evidence is very uncertain (odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 6.38; 5 studies, 797 participants; very low-quality evidence). Vein patch may have little to no difference in effect on long-term ipsilateral stroke between synthetic versus vein materials, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.07; P = 0.33; 4 studies, 776 participants; very low-quality evidence). Vein patch may increase pseudoaneurysm formation when compared with synthetic patch, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.49; 4 studies, 776 participants; very low-quality evidence). However, the numbers involved were small. Dacron patch compared with other synthetic patch angioplasty Dacron versus PTFE patch materials  PTFE patch may reduce the risk of perioperative ipsilateral stroke (OR 3.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 59.06; 2 studies, 400 participants; very low-quality evidence). PTFE patch may reduce the risk of long-term ipsilateral stroke (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.27; 1 study, 200 participants; very low-quality evidence). Dacron may result in an increase in perioperative combined stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) (OR 4.41 95% CI 1.20 to 16.14; 1 study, 200 participants; low-quality evidence) when compared with PTFE. Early arterial re-stenosis or occlusion (within 30 days) was also higher for Dacron patches. During follow-up for longer than one year, more 'any strokes' (OR 10.58, 95% CI 1.34 to 83.43; 2 studies, 304 participants; low-quality evidence) and stroke/death (OR 6.06, 95% CI 1.31 to 28.07; 1 study, 200 participants; low-quality evidence) were reported with Dacron patch closure, although numbers of outcome events were small. Dacron patch may increase the risk of re-stenosis when compared with other synthetic materials (especially with PTFE), but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 3.73, 95% CI 0.71 to 19.65; 3 studies, 490 participants; low-quality evidence). Bovine pericardium patch compared with other synthetic patch angioplasty Bovine pericardium versus PTFE patch materials  Evidence suggests that bovine pericardium patch results in a reduction in long-term ipsilateral stroke (OR 4.17, 95% CI 0.46 to 38.02; 1 study, 195 participants; low-quality evidence). Bovine pericardial patch may reduce the risk of perioperative fatal stroke, death, and infection compared to synthetic material (OR 5.16, 95% CI 0.24 to 108.83; 2 studies, 290 participants; low-quality evidence for PTFE, and low-quality evidence for Dacron; OR 4.39, 95% CI 0.48 to 39.95; 2 studies, 290 participants; low-quality evidence for PTFE, and low-quality evidence for Dacron; OR 7.30, 95% CI 0.37 to 143.16; 1 study, 195 participants; low-quality evidence, respectively), but the numbers of outcomes were small. The evidence is very uncertain about effects of the patch on infection outcomes.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>The number of outcome events is too small to allow conclusions, and more trial data are required to establish whether any differences do exist. Nevertheless, there is little to no difference in effect on perioperative and long-term ipsilateral stroke between vein and any synthetic patch material. Some evidence indicates that other synthetic patches (e.g. PTFE) may be superior to Dacron grafts in terms of perioperative stroke and TIA rates, and both early and late arterial re-stenosis and occlusion. Pseudoaneurysm formation may be more common after use of a vein patch than after use of a synthetic patch. Bovine pericardial patch, which is an acellular xenograft material, may reduce the risk of perioperative fatal stroke, death, and infection compared to other synthetic patches. Further large RCTs are required before definitive conclusions can be reached.</p>","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":" ","pages":"CD000071"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/14651858.CD000071.pub4","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000071.pub4","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

Background: Extracranial carotid artery stenosis is the major cause of stroke, which can lead to disability and mortality. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with carotid patch angioplasty is the most popular technique for reducing the risk of stroke. Patch material may be made from an autologous vein, bovine pericardium, or synthetic material including polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), Dacron, polyurethane, and polyester. This is an update of a review that was first published in 1996 and was last updated in 2010.

Objectives: To assess the safety and efficacy of different types of patch materials used in carotid patch angioplasty. The primary hypothesis was that a synthetic material was associated with lower risk of patch rupture versus venous patches, but that venous patches were associated with lower risk of perioperative stroke and early or late infection, or both.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched 25 May 2020); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 4), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1966 to 25 May 2020); Embase (1980 to 25 May 2020); the Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings (1980 to 2019); the Web of Science Core Collection; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal. We handsearched relevant journals and conference proceedings, checked reference lists, and contacted experts in the field.

Selection criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials (RCTs) comparing one type of carotid patch with another for CEA.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias, and trial quality; extracted data; and determined the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcomes, for example, perioperative ipsilateral stroke and long-term ipsilateral stroke (at least one year), were collected and analysed.

Main results: We included 14 trials involving a total of 2278 CEAs with patch closure operations: seven trials compared vein closure with PTFE closure, five compared Dacron grafts with other synthetic materials, and two compared bovine pericardium with other synthetic materials. In most trials, a patient could be randomised twice and could have each carotid artery randomised to different treatment groups. Synthetic patch compared with vein patch angioplasty Vein patch may have little to no difference in effect on perioperative ipsilateral stroke between synthetic versus vein materials, but the evidence is very uncertain (odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 6.38; 5 studies, 797 participants; very low-quality evidence). Vein patch may have little to no difference in effect on long-term ipsilateral stroke between synthetic versus vein materials, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.07; P = 0.33; 4 studies, 776 participants; very low-quality evidence). Vein patch may increase pseudoaneurysm formation when compared with synthetic patch, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.49; 4 studies, 776 participants; very low-quality evidence). However, the numbers involved were small. Dacron patch compared with other synthetic patch angioplasty Dacron versus PTFE patch materials  PTFE patch may reduce the risk of perioperative ipsilateral stroke (OR 3.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 59.06; 2 studies, 400 participants; very low-quality evidence). PTFE patch may reduce the risk of long-term ipsilateral stroke (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.27; 1 study, 200 participants; very low-quality evidence). Dacron may result in an increase in perioperative combined stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) (OR 4.41 95% CI 1.20 to 16.14; 1 study, 200 participants; low-quality evidence) when compared with PTFE. Early arterial re-stenosis or occlusion (within 30 days) was also higher for Dacron patches. During follow-up for longer than one year, more 'any strokes' (OR 10.58, 95% CI 1.34 to 83.43; 2 studies, 304 participants; low-quality evidence) and stroke/death (OR 6.06, 95% CI 1.31 to 28.07; 1 study, 200 participants; low-quality evidence) were reported with Dacron patch closure, although numbers of outcome events were small. Dacron patch may increase the risk of re-stenosis when compared with other synthetic materials (especially with PTFE), but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 3.73, 95% CI 0.71 to 19.65; 3 studies, 490 participants; low-quality evidence). Bovine pericardium patch compared with other synthetic patch angioplasty Bovine pericardium versus PTFE patch materials  Evidence suggests that bovine pericardium patch results in a reduction in long-term ipsilateral stroke (OR 4.17, 95% CI 0.46 to 38.02; 1 study, 195 participants; low-quality evidence). Bovine pericardial patch may reduce the risk of perioperative fatal stroke, death, and infection compared to synthetic material (OR 5.16, 95% CI 0.24 to 108.83; 2 studies, 290 participants; low-quality evidence for PTFE, and low-quality evidence for Dacron; OR 4.39, 95% CI 0.48 to 39.95; 2 studies, 290 participants; low-quality evidence for PTFE, and low-quality evidence for Dacron; OR 7.30, 95% CI 0.37 to 143.16; 1 study, 195 participants; low-quality evidence, respectively), but the numbers of outcomes were small. The evidence is very uncertain about effects of the patch on infection outcomes.

Authors' conclusions: The number of outcome events is too small to allow conclusions, and more trial data are required to establish whether any differences do exist. Nevertheless, there is little to no difference in effect on perioperative and long-term ipsilateral stroke between vein and any synthetic patch material. Some evidence indicates that other synthetic patches (e.g. PTFE) may be superior to Dacron grafts in terms of perioperative stroke and TIA rates, and both early and late arterial re-stenosis and occlusion. Pseudoaneurysm formation may be more common after use of a vein patch than after use of a synthetic patch. Bovine pericardial patch, which is an acellular xenograft material, may reduce the risk of perioperative fatal stroke, death, and infection compared to other synthetic patches. Further large RCTs are required before definitive conclusions can be reached.

不同类型的颈动脉贴片血管成形术。
背景:颅外颈动脉狭窄是脑卒中的主要原因,可导致残疾和死亡。颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)与颈动脉贴片血管成形术是降低卒中风险最常用的技术。贴片材料可以由自体静脉、牛心包或合成材料制成,包括聚四氟乙烯(PTFE)、涤纶、聚氨酯和聚酯。这是1996年首次发表的一篇综述的更新,最后一次更新是在2010年。目的:评价不同类型补片材料在颈动脉补片成形术中的安全性和有效性。主要假设是,与静脉贴片相比,合成材料与贴片破裂的风险较低有关,但静脉贴片与围手术期卒中和早期或晚期感染的风险较低有关,或两者兼而有之。检索方法:我们检索了Cochrane卒中组试验注册(最后检索于2020年5月25日);Cochrane中央对照试验登记册(Central;《Cochrane Library》,2020年第4期;MEDLINE(1966年至2020年5月25日);使馆(1980年至2020年5月25日);科学和技术会议索引(1980年至2019年);Web of Science核心馆藏;ClinicalTrials.gov;以及世界卫生组织(世卫组织)国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)门户网站。我们手工检索了相关期刊和会议记录,查阅了参考文献列表,并联系了该领域的专家。选择标准:随机和准随机试验(rct)比较一种类型的颈动脉贴片与另一种类型的CEA。数据收集和分析:两位综述作者独立评估了入选资格、偏倚风险和试验质量;提取的数据;并使用GRADE方法确定证据的质量。结果,例如,收集和分析围手术期同侧卒中和长期同侧卒中(至少一年)。主要结果:我们纳入了14项试验,共涉及2278例cea贴片闭合手术:7项试验比较静脉闭合与聚四氟乙烯闭合,5项试验比较涤纶移植物与其他合成材料,2项试验比较牛心包与其他合成材料。在大多数试验中,一名患者可以被随机分配两次,并且可以将每条颈动脉随机分配到不同的治疗组。合成贴片与静脉贴片血管成形术相比,静脉贴片对围手术期同侧卒中的影响可能几乎没有差异,但证据非常不确定(优势比(OR) 2.05, 95%可信区间(CI) 0.66 ~ 6.38;5项研究,797名受试者;非常低质量的证据)。静脉贴片对长期同侧卒中的影响在合成材料和静脉材料之间可能几乎没有差异,但证据非常不确定(OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.69至3.07;P = 0.33;4项研究,776名参与者;非常低质量的证据)。与合成贴片相比,静脉贴片可能增加假性动脉瘤的形成,但证据非常不确定(OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 ~ 0.49;4项研究,776名参与者;非常低质量的证据)。然而,涉及的人数很少。涤纶贴片与聚四氟乙烯贴片材料相比,聚四氟乙烯贴片可降低围手术期同侧卒中的风险(OR 3.35, 95% CI 0.19 ~ 59.06;2项研究,400名参与者;非常低质量的证据)。PTFE贴片可降低长期同侧卒中的风险(OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.25 ~ 9.27;1项研究,200名参与者;非常低质量的证据)。涤纶可能导致围手术期合并卒中和短暂性缺血发作(TIA)的增加(OR 4.41, 95% CI 1.20 ~ 16.14;1项研究,200名参与者;低质量证据)与聚四氟乙烯相比。涤纶贴片的早期动脉再狭窄或闭塞(30天内)发生率也较高。随访时间超过1年,“任何中风”发生率增加(OR 10.58, 95% CI 1.34 - 83.43;2项研究,304名受试者;低质量证据)和卒中/死亡(OR 6.06, 95% CI 1.31至28.07;1项研究,200名参与者;低质量证据)报道了涤纶贴片闭合,尽管结果事件的数量很少。与其他合成材料(尤其是聚四氟乙烯)相比,涤纶补片可能增加再狭窄的风险,但证据非常不确定(OR 3.73, 95% CI 0.71 ~ 19.65;3项研究,490名受试者;低质量证据)。牛心包贴片与PTFE贴片材料的比较证据表明,牛心包贴片可减少长期同侧卒中(OR 4.17, 95% CI 0.46 ~ 38.02;1项研究,195名参与者;低质量证据)。与合成材料相比,牛心包贴片可降低围手术期致命性卒中、死亡和感染的风险(OR 5.16, 95% CI 0.24 ~ 108)。 83;2项研究,290名参与者;聚四氟乙烯的低质量证据,涤纶的低质量证据;OR 4.39, 95% CI 0.48 ~ 39.95;2项研究,290名参与者;聚四氟乙烯的低质量证据,涤纶的低质量证据;OR 7.30, 95% CI 0.37 ~ 143.16;1项研究,195名参与者;(分别为低质量证据),但结果的数量很少。证据非常不确定贴片对感染结果的影响。作者结论:结果事件的数量太少,无法得出结论,需要更多的试验数据来确定是否存在任何差异。然而,静脉贴片和任何合成贴片材料对围手术期和长期同侧卒中的影响几乎没有差异。一些证据表明,其他合成补片(如PTFE)在围手术期卒中和TIA发生率以及早期和晚期动脉再狭窄和闭塞方面可能优于涤纶移植物。假性动脉瘤的形成可能在使用静脉贴片后比使用合成贴片后更常见。牛心包贴片是一种非细胞异种移植材料,与其他合成贴片相比,可降低围手术期致命性中风、死亡和感染的风险。在得出明确的结论之前,需要进一步的大型随机对照试验。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信