动脉粥样硬化切除术与支架置入术治疗普通股动脉粥样硬化疾病:一项系统综述。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Mathias Montveneur, Guillaume Daniel, Pierre-Jules Delannoy, Kinga Michalewska, Sonia Ramos-Pascual, Mo Saffarini, Nicolas Bouchareine
{"title":"动脉粥样硬化切除术与支架置入术治疗普通股动脉粥样硬化疾病:一项系统综述。","authors":"Mathias Montveneur, Guillaume Daniel, Pierre-Jules Delannoy, Kinga Michalewska, Sonia Ramos-Pascual, Mo Saffarini, Nicolas Bouchareine","doi":"10.1016/j.jvir.2025.08.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the outcomes of atherectomy versus stent placement for common femoral artery (CFA) symptomatic atherosclerosis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for records from 2000 to 2023. The following data were extracted and tabulated: (a) characteristics of studies, (b) patients, (c) lesions and interventions, and (d) clinical and technical outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search identified 2,088 references, of which 33 studies were included: 11 reported only on atherectomy, 20 reported only on stent placement, and 2 reported on both treatments. Atherectomy and stent placement studies were comparable in terms of age, sex, prevalence of comorbidities, chronic limb ischemia, preprocedural Rutherford score, and ankle-brachial index. Technical success ranged across the studies from 92% to 100% for atherectomy versus 94% to 100% for stent placement, periprocedural adverse event rates ranged from 0% to 24% versus 0% to 19%, rates of freedom from target lesion revascularization ranged from 83% to 100% versus 81% to 100%, and limb salvage rates ranged from 85% to 100% versus 94% to 100%. Stent fracture rates ranged from 0% to 8%. Only 5 of 13 studies on atherectomy and 5 of 22 studies on stent placement met all 7 MMAT criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review demonstrates satisfactory outcomes with both methods, with no clear advantage of one technique over the other. However, available data on these 2 techniques are heterogeneous. Future studies are necessary to conclude if either technique is superior for the treatment of symptomatic CFA atherosclerosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":49962,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Atherectomy versus Stent Placement for Common Femoral Artery Atherosclerotic Disease: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Mathias Montveneur, Guillaume Daniel, Pierre-Jules Delannoy, Kinga Michalewska, Sonia Ramos-Pascual, Mo Saffarini, Nicolas Bouchareine\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jvir.2025.08.015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the outcomes of atherectomy versus stent placement for common femoral artery (CFA) symptomatic atherosclerosis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for records from 2000 to 2023. The following data were extracted and tabulated: (a) characteristics of studies, (b) patients, (c) lesions and interventions, and (d) clinical and technical outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search identified 2,088 references, of which 33 studies were included: 11 reported only on atherectomy, 20 reported only on stent placement, and 2 reported on both treatments. Atherectomy and stent placement studies were comparable in terms of age, sex, prevalence of comorbidities, chronic limb ischemia, preprocedural Rutherford score, and ankle-brachial index. Technical success ranged across the studies from 92% to 100% for atherectomy versus 94% to 100% for stent placement, periprocedural adverse event rates ranged from 0% to 24% versus 0% to 19%, rates of freedom from target lesion revascularization ranged from 83% to 100% versus 81% to 100%, and limb salvage rates ranged from 85% to 100% versus 94% to 100%. Stent fracture rates ranged from 0% to 8%. Only 5 of 13 studies on atherectomy and 5 of 22 studies on stent placement met all 7 MMAT criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review demonstrates satisfactory outcomes with both methods, with no clear advantage of one technique over the other. However, available data on these 2 techniques are heterogeneous. Future studies are necessary to conclude if either technique is superior for the treatment of symptomatic CFA atherosclerosis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49962,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2025.08.015\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2025.08.015","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较动脉粥样硬化切除术与支架置入术治疗股总动脉(CFA)症状性动脉粥样硬化的效果。方法:本综述遵循PRISMA指南,并在PROSPERO注册。检索MEDLINE和Embase数据库2000 - 2023年的记录。提取并制表以下数据:研究特征、患者、病变和干预措施,以及临床和技术结果。使用混合方法评估工具(MMAT)评估偏倚风险。结果:检索到2088篇文献,其中包括33篇研究:11篇仅报道动脉粥样硬化切除术,20篇仅报道支架置入术,2篇两种治疗均报道。动脉粥样硬化切除术和支架置入研究在年龄、性别、合并症患病率、慢性肢体缺血、术前卢瑟福和ABI方面似乎具有可比性。所有研究的技术成功率从动脉粥样硬化切除术的92% -100%到支架置入的94% -100%不等,围手术期并发症从0-24%到0-19%不等,TLR的自由度从83-100%到81-100%不等,肢体保留从85-100%到94-100%不等。支架骨折率从0-8%不等。13项动脉粥样硬化切除术研究中只有5项,22项支架植入研究中只有5项符合MMAT的全部7项标准。结论:动脉粥样硬化切除术和支架植入术似乎为有症状的CFA动脉粥样硬化提供了可比较且有利的结果。然而,没有前瞻性研究直接比较这两种技术,可用的数据是异构的。未来的研究需要得出结论,这两种技术中是否有一种更适合治疗有症状的CFA动脉粥样硬化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Atherectomy versus Stent Placement for Common Femoral Artery Atherosclerotic Disease: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: To compare the outcomes of atherectomy versus stent placement for common femoral artery (CFA) symptomatic atherosclerosis.

Materials and methods: This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for records from 2000 to 2023. The following data were extracted and tabulated: (a) characteristics of studies, (b) patients, (c) lesions and interventions, and (d) clinical and technical outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).

Results: The search identified 2,088 references, of which 33 studies were included: 11 reported only on atherectomy, 20 reported only on stent placement, and 2 reported on both treatments. Atherectomy and stent placement studies were comparable in terms of age, sex, prevalence of comorbidities, chronic limb ischemia, preprocedural Rutherford score, and ankle-brachial index. Technical success ranged across the studies from 92% to 100% for atherectomy versus 94% to 100% for stent placement, periprocedural adverse event rates ranged from 0% to 24% versus 0% to 19%, rates of freedom from target lesion revascularization ranged from 83% to 100% versus 81% to 100%, and limb salvage rates ranged from 85% to 100% versus 94% to 100%. Stent fracture rates ranged from 0% to 8%. Only 5 of 13 studies on atherectomy and 5 of 22 studies on stent placement met all 7 MMAT criteria.

Conclusions: This systematic review demonstrates satisfactory outcomes with both methods, with no clear advantage of one technique over the other. However, available data on these 2 techniques are heterogeneous. Future studies are necessary to conclude if either technique is superior for the treatment of symptomatic CFA atherosclerosis.

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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
10.30%
发文量
942
审稿时长
90 days
期刊介绍: JVIR, published continuously since 1990, is an international, monthly peer-reviewed interventional radiology journal. As the official journal of the Society of Interventional Radiology, JVIR is the peer-reviewed journal of choice for interventional radiologists, radiologists, cardiologists, vascular surgeons, neurosurgeons, and other clinicians who seek current and reliable information on every aspect of vascular and interventional radiology. Each issue of JVIR covers critical and cutting-edge medical minimally invasive, clinical, basic research, radiological, pathological, and socioeconomic issues of importance to the field.
×
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