颈动脉疾病患者经颈动脉血管重建术与颈动脉内膜剥脱术的比较:30天疗效的系统回顾和元分析》。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Angiology Pub Date : 2025-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-27 DOI:10.1177/00033197241241788
Georgios Loufopoulos, Vasiliki Manaki, Panagiotis Tasoudis, Nina-Rafailia Karela, Christophe Sénéchaud, Argirios Giannopoulos, Kiriakos Ktenidis, Konstantinos Spanos
{"title":"颈动脉疾病患者经颈动脉血管重建术与颈动脉内膜剥脱术的比较:30天疗效的系统回顾和元分析》。","authors":"Georgios Loufopoulos, Vasiliki Manaki, Panagiotis Tasoudis, Nina-Rafailia Karela, Christophe Sénéchaud, Argirios Giannopoulos, Kiriakos Ktenidis, Konstantinos Spanos","doi":"10.1177/00033197241241788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review and meta-analysis compared trans-carotid artery revascularization (TCAR) as an alternative approach to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with carotid artery disease. An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases including comparative studies with patients who underwent either TCAR or CEA. This meta-analysis is according to the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. Eight studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 7,606 and 7,048 patients in the TCAR and CEA groups, respectively. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-1.56, <i>P</i> = .81) and stroke (OR: 0.92, 95%CI 0.70-1.22, <i>P</i> = .57) were similar between the two groups, with low heterogeneity. The odds of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.18-2.71, <i>P</i> = .01) and cranial nerve injury were significantly higher in patients undergoing CEA compared with TCAR (OR: 4.11, 95% CI: 2.59-6.51, <i>P</i> < .001). The subgroup analysis according to symptomatic pre-intervention status revealed no statistically significant difference regarding 30-day mortality (symptomatic OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.40-2.07, <i>P</i> = .82, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.46-1.86, <i>P</i> = .83) and stroke (symptomatic OR: 0.88, 95% CI:0.47-1.64, <i>P</i> = .68, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.64-1.35, <i>P</i> = .70). TCAR offers an alternative treatment for patients with carotid artery stenosis with comparable to CEA mortality and stroke rates during a 30-day post-operative period.</p>","PeriodicalId":8264,"journal":{"name":"Angiology","volume":" ","pages":"928-936"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trans-Carotid Artery Revascularization Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Patients With Carotid Artery Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 30-day Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Georgios Loufopoulos, Vasiliki Manaki, Panagiotis Tasoudis, Nina-Rafailia Karela, Christophe Sénéchaud, Argirios Giannopoulos, Kiriakos Ktenidis, Konstantinos Spanos\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00033197241241788\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This systematic review and meta-analysis compared trans-carotid artery revascularization (TCAR) as an alternative approach to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with carotid artery disease. An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases including comparative studies with patients who underwent either TCAR or CEA. This meta-analysis is according to the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. Eight studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 7,606 and 7,048 patients in the TCAR and CEA groups, respectively. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-1.56, <i>P</i> = .81) and stroke (OR: 0.92, 95%CI 0.70-1.22, <i>P</i> = .57) were similar between the two groups, with low heterogeneity. The odds of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.18-2.71, <i>P</i> = .01) and cranial nerve injury were significantly higher in patients undergoing CEA compared with TCAR (OR: 4.11, 95% CI: 2.59-6.51, <i>P</i> < .001). The subgroup analysis according to symptomatic pre-intervention status revealed no statistically significant difference regarding 30-day mortality (symptomatic OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.40-2.07, <i>P</i> = .82, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.46-1.86, <i>P</i> = .83) and stroke (symptomatic OR: 0.88, 95% CI:0.47-1.64, <i>P</i> = .68, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.64-1.35, <i>P</i> = .70). TCAR offers an alternative treatment for patients with carotid artery stenosis with comparable to CEA mortality and stroke rates during a 30-day post-operative period.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8264,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Angiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"928-936\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Angiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00033197241241788\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Angiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00033197241241788","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本系统综述和荟萃分析比较了经颈动脉血运重建术(TCAR)作为颈动脉疾病患者颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)的替代方法。我们使用 PubMed、Scopus 和 Cochrane 数据库进行了电子检索,其中包括接受 TCAR 或 CEA 患者的对比研究。该荟萃分析符合 PRISMA 声明的建议。有八项研究符合我们的资格标准,分别纳入了 TCAR 组和 CEA 组的 7606 名和 7048 名患者。两组患者的 30 天死亡率(比值比 [OR]:0.94,95% 置信区间 [CI]:0.56-1.56,P = .81)和中风(比值比 [OR]:0.92,95% 置信区间 [CI]:0.70-1.22,P = .57)相似,异质性较低。与 TCAR 相比,接受 CEA 的患者发生心肌梗死(OR:1.79,95% CI:1.18-2.71,P = .01)和颅神经损伤的几率明显更高(OR:4.11,95% CI:2.59-6.51,P < .001)。根据干预前无症状状态进行的亚组分析表明,30 天死亡率(无症状 OR:0.91,95% CI:0.40-2.07,P = .82;无症状 OR:0.93,95% CI:0.46-1.86,P = .83)和中风(无症状 OR:0.88,95% CI:0.47-1.64,P = .68;无症状 OR:0.93,95% CI:0.64-1.35,P = .70)无统计学差异。TCAR为颈动脉狭窄患者提供了一种替代治疗方法,术后30天内的死亡率和中风率与CEA相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Trans-Carotid Artery Revascularization Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Patients With Carotid Artery Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 30-day Outcomes.

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared trans-carotid artery revascularization (TCAR) as an alternative approach to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with carotid artery disease. An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases including comparative studies with patients who underwent either TCAR or CEA. This meta-analysis is according to the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. Eight studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 7,606 and 7,048 patients in the TCAR and CEA groups, respectively. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-1.56, P = .81) and stroke (OR: 0.92, 95%CI 0.70-1.22, P = .57) were similar between the two groups, with low heterogeneity. The odds of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.18-2.71, P = .01) and cranial nerve injury were significantly higher in patients undergoing CEA compared with TCAR (OR: 4.11, 95% CI: 2.59-6.51, P < .001). The subgroup analysis according to symptomatic pre-intervention status revealed no statistically significant difference regarding 30-day mortality (symptomatic OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.40-2.07, P = .82, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.46-1.86, P = .83) and stroke (symptomatic OR: 0.88, 95% CI:0.47-1.64, P = .68, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.64-1.35, P = .70). TCAR offers an alternative treatment for patients with carotid artery stenosis with comparable to CEA mortality and stroke rates during a 30-day post-operative period.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Angiology
Angiology 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: A presentation of original, peer-reviewed original articles, review and case reports relative to all phases of all vascular diseases, Angiology (ANG) offers more than a typical cardiology journal. With approximately 1000 pages per year covering diagnostic methods, therapeutic approaches, and clinical and laboratory research, ANG is among the most informative publications in the field of peripheral vascular and cardiovascular diseases. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 13 days
×
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