药物治疗与动脉内膜切除术治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
José R Rodrigues, Andreia Coelho, Armando Mansilha
{"title":"药物治疗与动脉内膜切除术治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"José R Rodrigues, Andreia Coelho, Armando Mansilha","doi":"10.23736/S0392-9590.25.05308-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis traditionally relies on revascularization procedures. However, evolution of medical treatment over the last decades, prompted the possibility to consider a best medical treatment approach as viable for the management of low-risk symptomatic patients. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence on the long-term outcomes of symptomatic patients treated medically, being critical to reassess the risk-benefit balance of invasive procedures in addition to best medical treatment. This study aims to review evidence on long-term outcomes of symptomatic carotid stenosis patients treated with best medical treatment alone and assess whether additional revascularization offers any beneficial effects.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A systematic review was performed according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis statement and guidelines.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>There was a trend for a higher risk of stroke (pooled risk of 6.96% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.76-9.15%]), death (pooled risk of 3.14% [95% CI: 1.64-4.64%]), and the combined outcome of stroke or death (pooled risk of 8.91% [95% CI: 6.49-11.33%]) in the medical group compared to patients undergoing revascularization procedures: 4.51% (95% CI: 2.67-6.35%), 2.65% (95% CI: 1.23-4.08%), and 6.56% (95% CI: 4.37-8.76%), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While best medical treatment has undergone significant advancements in recent decades, there is scarce data regarding the long-term outcomes of symptomatic patients receiving such treatment. Future research investigating the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis by surgery or endovascular methods should incorporate medical treatment arms to accurately assess the incidence of recurrent events in patients undergoing best medical treatment in the long-term.</p>","PeriodicalId":13709,"journal":{"name":"International Angiology","volume":"44 1","pages":"41-50"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medical treatment versus endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"José R Rodrigues, Andreia Coelho, Armando Mansilha\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S0392-9590.25.05308-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis traditionally relies on revascularization procedures. However, evolution of medical treatment over the last decades, prompted the possibility to consider a best medical treatment approach as viable for the management of low-risk symptomatic patients. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence on the long-term outcomes of symptomatic patients treated medically, being critical to reassess the risk-benefit balance of invasive procedures in addition to best medical treatment. This study aims to review evidence on long-term outcomes of symptomatic carotid stenosis patients treated with best medical treatment alone and assess whether additional revascularization offers any beneficial effects.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A systematic review was performed according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis statement and guidelines.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>There was a trend for a higher risk of stroke (pooled risk of 6.96% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.76-9.15%]), death (pooled risk of 3.14% [95% CI: 1.64-4.64%]), and the combined outcome of stroke or death (pooled risk of 8.91% [95% CI: 6.49-11.33%]) in the medical group compared to patients undergoing revascularization procedures: 4.51% (95% CI: 2.67-6.35%), 2.65% (95% CI: 1.23-4.08%), and 6.56% (95% CI: 4.37-8.76%), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While best medical treatment has undergone significant advancements in recent decades, there is scarce data regarding the long-term outcomes of symptomatic patients receiving such treatment. Future research investigating the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis by surgery or endovascular methods should incorporate medical treatment arms to accurately assess the incidence of recurrent events in patients undergoing best medical treatment in the long-term.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13709,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Angiology\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"41-50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Angiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0392-9590.25.05308-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Angiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0392-9590.25.05308-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

症状性颈动脉狭窄的治疗传统上依赖于血运重建术。然而,在过去的几十年里,医学治疗的发展促使人们有可能考虑一种最佳的医学治疗方法,作为管理低风险症状患者的可行方法。然而,关于有症状的患者接受医学治疗的长期结果的证据有限,这对于重新评估侵入性手术的风险-收益平衡至关重要。本研究旨在回顾症状性颈动脉狭窄患者单独接受最佳药物治疗的长期预后,并评估额外的血运重建术是否有任何有益的效果。证据获取:根据系统评价和荟萃分析声明及指南的首选报告项目的建议进行系统评价。证据综合:与接受血运重建术的患者相比,内科组的卒中(合并风险为6.96%[95%可信区间(CI): 4.76-9.15%])、死亡(合并风险为3.14% [95% CI: 1.64-4.64%])和卒中或死亡的综合结局(合并风险为8.91% [95% CI: 6.49-11.33%])分别有更高的趋势:4.51% (95% CI: 2.67-6.35%)、2.65% (95% CI: 1.23-4.08%)和6.56% (95% CI: 4.37-8.76%)。结论:尽管近几十年来,最佳医疗方法取得了显著进展,但关于接受此类治疗的有症状患者的长期预后的数据很少。未来研究通过手术或血管内方法治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄时,应纳入药物治疗臂,以准确评估长期接受最佳药物治疗的患者复发事件的发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Medical treatment versus endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: The treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis traditionally relies on revascularization procedures. However, evolution of medical treatment over the last decades, prompted the possibility to consider a best medical treatment approach as viable for the management of low-risk symptomatic patients. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence on the long-term outcomes of symptomatic patients treated medically, being critical to reassess the risk-benefit balance of invasive procedures in addition to best medical treatment. This study aims to review evidence on long-term outcomes of symptomatic carotid stenosis patients treated with best medical treatment alone and assess whether additional revascularization offers any beneficial effects.

Evidence acquisition: A systematic review was performed according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis statement and guidelines.

Evidence synthesis: There was a trend for a higher risk of stroke (pooled risk of 6.96% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.76-9.15%]), death (pooled risk of 3.14% [95% CI: 1.64-4.64%]), and the combined outcome of stroke or death (pooled risk of 8.91% [95% CI: 6.49-11.33%]) in the medical group compared to patients undergoing revascularization procedures: 4.51% (95% CI: 2.67-6.35%), 2.65% (95% CI: 1.23-4.08%), and 6.56% (95% CI: 4.37-8.76%), respectively.

Conclusions: While best medical treatment has undergone significant advancements in recent decades, there is scarce data regarding the long-term outcomes of symptomatic patients receiving such treatment. Future research investigating the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis by surgery or endovascular methods should incorporate medical treatment arms to accurately assess the incidence of recurrent events in patients undergoing best medical treatment in the long-term.

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
International Angiology
International Angiology 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
28.60%
发文量
89
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Angiology publishes scientific papers on angiology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of editorials, original articles, review articles, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines. The journal aims to provide its readers with papers of the highest quality and impact through a process of careful peer review and editorial work. Duties and responsibilities of all the subjects involved in the editorial process are summarized at Publication ethics. Manuscripts are expected to comply with the instructions to authors which conform to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Editors by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
×
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