支架支撑血管成形术与动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄:来自当前随机试验的证据。

R Zahn, M Hochadel, A Grau, J Senges
{"title":"支架支撑血管成形术与动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄:来自当前随机试验的证据。","authors":"R Zahn,&nbsp;M Hochadel,&nbsp;A Grau,&nbsp;J Senges","doi":"10.1007/s00392-005-0311-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Carotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid artery stenoses is evolving as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, the value of CAS is still a matter of debate. Therefore, we performed a metaanalysis of the randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) on this issue.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>RCTs were identified through searching MEDLINE, textbooks and by personal communication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six finished RCTs on this issue could be identified, including 1263 patients, 628 randomized to CAS and 635 to CEA. The 30-day death or stroke rate was 8.0% (50/628) in patients treated with CAS compared to 6.1% (39/635) in CEA patients (OR=1.36, 95% CI: 0.88-2.11; p=0.17; p for heterogeneity=0.009). The rate of cranial nerve palsy was 7.1% in the CEA compared to 0% in the CAS group (p<0.0001). The rate of myocardial infarctions was reduced from 3.1 to 1% (OR=0.32, 95% CI: 0.12- 0.81; p=0.02; p for heterogeneity=0.49). The death or stroke rate during follow-up was 12.1% in patients treated with CAS compared to 12.2% in CEA patients (OR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.70-1.42; p=0.98; p for heterogeneity=0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The available RCT data on CAS vs. CEA suggest that both methods seem to be equally effective concerning short- and medium-term results, while CAS is associated with lower minor complications than CEA. However, because of the significant heterogeneity between the study outcomes, the results of the large RCTs underway should be awaited before it can be advised to use CAS in a broader perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":23757,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Kardiologie","volume":"94 12","pages":"836-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00392-005-0311-5","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stent-supported angioplasty versus endarterectomy for carotid artery stenosis: evidence from current randomized trials.\",\"authors\":\"R Zahn,&nbsp;M Hochadel,&nbsp;A Grau,&nbsp;J Senges\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00392-005-0311-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Carotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid artery stenoses is evolving as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, the value of CAS is still a matter of debate. Therefore, we performed a metaanalysis of the randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) on this issue.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>RCTs were identified through searching MEDLINE, textbooks and by personal communication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six finished RCTs on this issue could be identified, including 1263 patients, 628 randomized to CAS and 635 to CEA. The 30-day death or stroke rate was 8.0% (50/628) in patients treated with CAS compared to 6.1% (39/635) in CEA patients (OR=1.36, 95% CI: 0.88-2.11; p=0.17; p for heterogeneity=0.009). The rate of cranial nerve palsy was 7.1% in the CEA compared to 0% in the CAS group (p<0.0001). The rate of myocardial infarctions was reduced from 3.1 to 1% (OR=0.32, 95% CI: 0.12- 0.81; p=0.02; p for heterogeneity=0.49). The death or stroke rate during follow-up was 12.1% in patients treated with CAS compared to 12.2% in CEA patients (OR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.70-1.42; p=0.98; p for heterogeneity=0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The available RCT data on CAS vs. CEA suggest that both methods seem to be equally effective concerning short- and medium-term results, while CAS is associated with lower minor complications than CEA. However, because of the significant heterogeneity between the study outcomes, the results of the large RCTs underway should be awaited before it can be advised to use CAS in a broader perspective.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23757,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift fur Kardiologie\",\"volume\":\"94 12\",\"pages\":\"836-43\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00392-005-0311-5\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift fur Kardiologie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-005-0311-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Kardiologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-005-0311-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

背景:颈动脉支架植入术(CAS)治疗颈动脉狭窄正在发展成为颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)的替代方法。然而,CAS的价值仍然存在争议。因此,我们对这个问题进行了随机对照临床试验(RCT)的荟萃分析。方法:通过检索MEDLINE、教科书和个人交流等方式进行随机对照试验的筛选。结果:该问题共纳入6项已完成的rct,其中1263例患者,随机分为CAS组628例,CEA组635例。CAS组患者30天死亡或卒中发生率为8.0% (50/628),CEA组为6.1% (39/635)(or =1.36, 95% CI: 0.88-2.11;p = 0.17;异质性P =0.009)。CEA组脑神经麻痹的发生率为7.1%,而CAS组为0%(结论:CAS与CEA的现有RCT数据表明,两种方法在短期和中期结果上似乎同样有效,而CAS的轻微并发症比CEA低。然而,由于研究结果之间存在显著的异质性,在建议从更广泛的角度使用CAS之前,应该等待正在进行的大型随机对照试验的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Stent-supported angioplasty versus endarterectomy for carotid artery stenosis: evidence from current randomized trials.

Background: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid artery stenoses is evolving as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, the value of CAS is still a matter of debate. Therefore, we performed a metaanalysis of the randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) on this issue.

Methods: RCTs were identified through searching MEDLINE, textbooks and by personal communication.

Results: Six finished RCTs on this issue could be identified, including 1263 patients, 628 randomized to CAS and 635 to CEA. The 30-day death or stroke rate was 8.0% (50/628) in patients treated with CAS compared to 6.1% (39/635) in CEA patients (OR=1.36, 95% CI: 0.88-2.11; p=0.17; p for heterogeneity=0.009). The rate of cranial nerve palsy was 7.1% in the CEA compared to 0% in the CAS group (p<0.0001). The rate of myocardial infarctions was reduced from 3.1 to 1% (OR=0.32, 95% CI: 0.12- 0.81; p=0.02; p for heterogeneity=0.49). The death or stroke rate during follow-up was 12.1% in patients treated with CAS compared to 12.2% in CEA patients (OR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.70-1.42; p=0.98; p for heterogeneity=0.02).

Conclusion: The available RCT data on CAS vs. CEA suggest that both methods seem to be equally effective concerning short- and medium-term results, while CAS is associated with lower minor complications than CEA. However, because of the significant heterogeneity between the study outcomes, the results of the large RCTs underway should be awaited before it can be advised to use CAS in a broader perspective.

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
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