������֧�ܳ��������Ƹ�Σ��������խ

目的探讨颈动脉支架成形术治疗高危颈动脉狭窄的可行性、安全性及短期疗效一方法自200l年8月至2003年7月，共采用颈动脉支架成形术治疗高危颈动脉狭窄8例，术前平均狭窄程度分别为(74.13=13.38)％，均为症状性病人结果狭窄位于颈内动脉6例，位于颈总动脉2例，所有病人均成功地植入支架术后狭窄程度均≤10％。全部病人无临床并发症，5例临床症状消失，3例临床症状不同程度好转随访3～27个月，无短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)等缺血性神经损害发生；影像学检查无显著再狭窄。结论颈动脉支架成形术治疗颈动脉狭窄安全有效，尤其适合于颈动脉内膜切除术高危的病人，脑保护装置可以有效减少因硬化斑块或血枪引起的并发症     

颈动脉转流管在复杂颈动脉体瘤手术切除中的应用

目的:探讨在复杂颈动脉体瘤(CBT)手术过程中应用转流管的安全性及时机选择。方法:回顾性对比分析北京大学人民医院血管外科2002年1月—2018年3月收治的Shamblin Ⅱ、Ⅲ型CBT共85例手术患者的临床资料,其中33例应用转流管(转流管组),另52例未应用转流管(非转流管组),分析、比较两组患者的相关临床资料。结果:转流管组中Shamblin Ⅲ型患者比例明显多于非转流管组(P0.05),其他术前一般资料两组间无统计学差异(均P0.05)。转流管组33例均行颈内动脉重建,大隐静脉补片修补9例,因破裂严重行端端吻合重建共24例;非转流管组52例患者中,2例行颈内动脉重建同时颈外动脉结扎, 14例行单纯颈外动脉结扎,6例行颈外动脉重建。转流管组的手术时间、术中出血、短期神经并发症发生率较非转流管组明显增加(均P0.05),但两组在术后动脉狭窄发生率、长期神经损伤发生率无统计学差异(均P0.05)。结论:复杂Shamblin Ⅱ、Ⅲ型CBT术中采用颈动脉转流是一种安全的治疗手段,不会增加术中心血管系统并发症的风险,同时对长期神经损伤无明显影响。如出现颈动脉破裂可以尽快应用转流管维持颅内血流,可能有助于减少相对的出血及手术时间,同时减少神经不可逆损伤的发生。     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术的临床应用

目的探讨应用颈动脉剥脱术治疗颈动脉狭窄和闭塞。方法对2004年6月至2005年4月对8例颈动脉硬化狭窄患者行颈动脉内膜剥脱术的临床资料进行回顾性分析，所有患者颈内动脉狭窄程度均大于70％，术中都应用Brener转流管及血管补片。结果术后所有患者未出现严重并发症，脑部供血好转，术后颈动脉超声及CTA检查见患侧颈动脉血流增加，未见动脉瘤形成。结论颈动脉内膜剥脱术是治疗颈动脉狭窄和闭塞较有效的方法。术中可常规应用转流管，应用血管补片可提高远期疗效。     

颈动脉内膜剥除术及支架成形术治疗颈动脉狭窄的相关研究

目的：探讨颈动脉内膜切除术及颈动脉支架成形术在治疗颈动脉狭窄中的应用，并对此两种术式的适应证进行讨论。方法：根据狭窄的部位和程度对121例颅外颈动脉狭窄病人采取不同的手术方法；其中104例为颈动脉内膜切除术．17例为颈动脉支架成形术。分析其治疗结果及并发症发生的原因。结果：手术均获成功，但颈动脉内膜切除术术后严重并发症的发生率较支架成形术为低。结论：颈动脉内膜切除术仍然是治疗颅外颈动脉狭窄的主要方法．而颈动脉支架成形术则可应用于颈动脉内膜切除术无法到达的狭窄部位。     

颈动脉狭窄支架成形术中应对血流动力学变化的临床探讨

目的探讨颈动脉狭窄支架成形术中应对血流动力学变化处理措施的有效性。方法对前期80例患者术中未作特殊处理;后期125例行支架成形术的患者术中严格控制血压在个体正常值的下限,心率升高至80次／min后开始扩张狭窄并放置支架。结果前80例患者并发症为8．8％,严格调控血流动力学的125例患者未见明显并发症。随访1个月～5年,均无严重再狭窄发生。结论重视调整颈动脉狭窄支架成形术中的血流动力学变化对减少并发症,提高治疗效果有益。     

颈动脉转流管在颅外段血管手术中的应用

目的：探讨颈动脉转流管在颅外段血管手术中的保护作用。方法：男性16例，女性7例；年龄11--76岁，平均55岁。包括颈动脉硬化性狭窄12例(双侧3例)，行颈动脉硬化内膜剥脱术；颈动脉体瘤4例(双侧1例)，行颈动脉体瘤切除术；颈动脉假性动脉瘤4例(双侧1例)，行假性动脉瘤切除、颈动脉破口修补术；颈内动脉瘤2例，行瘤体大部切除缩缝成形术；颈动脉迂曲症1例，行颈动脉多余段切除、端端吻合术。以上手术均在颈动脉转流管保护下完成。结果本组无手术死亡，未发生与脑缺血有关的并发症，仅1例颈动脉体瘤患者并发Horner氏征。结论：颈动脉转流管在颅外段颈动脉有关疾病的手术中有良好的保护作用。     

显微颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄和闭塞

目的:探讨颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄和闭塞的疗效.方法2005年8月至2008年11月16例患者均经彩色超声、磁共振血管成像(MRA)、CTA、数字减影血管造影证实为中重度颈动脉狭窄,14例狭窄率为60%～99%,2例完全闭塞;12例行标准颈动脉内膜切除术,4例行外翻式颈动脉内膜切除术;2例术中放置转流管;1例术中行补片成形术.所有手术均借助显微镜完成.结果:围手术期及术后随访无卒中、短暂性脑缺血及死亡病例.术后均经彩色超声、MRA检查证实颈内动脉血流通畅,术后原症状改善或消失.1例并发消化道出血,1例围手术期有声嘶、呛水,对症治疗后症状消失,余均无并发症.结论:颈动脉内膜切除术是治疗颈动脉狭窄的有效方法,采用不同术式及技术,对不同颈动脉病变可以达到最佳治疗效果;显微手术有助于高位分叉颈动脉的显露,能有效避免颅神经损伤及其他并发症.     

颈动脉狭窄的外科治疗

目的:探讨颈动脉狭窄的外科治疗方法.方法:根据狭窄的部位和程度对82例颅外颈动脉狭窄患者采取不同的手术方法,其中颈动脉内膜切除术65例,颈动脉支架成形术10例.结果:手术均获成功,但颈动脉内膜切除术的术后并发症发生率最低.结论:颈动脉内膜切除术仍然是治疗颅外颈动脉狭窄的主要方法,而颈动脉支架成形术则可以解决颈动脉内膜切除术无法到达部位的狭窄.     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗颈动脉狭窄58例临床分析

目的 评估颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗颅外颈动脉狭窄的疗效,并探讨经颅多普勒超声(transcranial Doppler,TCD)的价值. 方法回顾性分析2002年1月至2008年12月采用颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗的58例颅外颈动脉狭窄的资料.40例伴有不同程度的脑缺血症状,18例无明显症状.颈动脉狭窄程度均在70%以上.41例行内膜剥脱后动脉单纯缝合,9例采用人工材料(涤纶)补片成形,8例行自体静脉补片成形.32例在TCD的监测下完成,26例没有采用TCD监测,28例则采用临时转流管. 结果手术成功率为100%,无死亡率.术前有腩缺血症状的40例患者中,术后大多数患者有不同程度的恢复.未采用TCD组患者5例(19.2%)术后出现脑血流过度灌注.采用TCD者未发现过度灌注的并发症.53例患者获随访,随访率为91.4%;随访时间为15～86个月,平均42.5个月.死亡5例.3例出现术后再狭窄(5.7%),其中2例接受颈动脉支架成形术,1例仍在观察随访中.结论 颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗颅外颈动脉狭窄是一种安全、有效的措施;TCD监测对于转流管的选择提供重要依据,并对预防术后过度脑灌注具有指导作用.     

不使用转流管颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗双侧颈动脉狭窄的安全性分析

目的探讨颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)治疗一侧颈动脉重度狭窄伴对侧颈动脉轻-中度及重度狭窄患者不使用转流管的安全性。方法回顾性分析138例一侧颈动脉重度狭窄伴对侧颈动脉不同程度狭窄患者的临床资料,其中对侧颈动脉轻-中度狭窄组95例(A组),对侧颈动脉重度狭窄组43例(B组)。随访CEA后30 d内2组患者心脏、术侧新发脑卒中等并发症和病死率。评估对侧颈动脉狭窄的程度对不使用转流管CEA的安全性的影响。结果 138例患者均成功实施CEA,术中均未使用转流管。术后30 d内A组出现2例(2.11%)心脏并发症,3例(3.16%)脑卒中,1例(1.05%)死亡。B组出现2例(4.65%)心脏并发症,1例(2.33%)脑卒中,无死亡病例。2组各不良事件比较差异无统计学意义(P=1.000,P=0.781,P=1.000)。总的主要不良事件发生率为6.5%,卒中及病死率为3.6%。结论不使用转流管CEA治疗双侧颈动脉狭窄,安全、有效,随着对侧颈动脉狭窄程度增加并不增加围手术期脑卒中和死亡风险。     

A comparison of carotid artery stenting with neuroprotection versus carotid endarterectomy under local anesthesia

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) reduce the risk of stroke in patients with high-grade carotid artery stenosis. Despite the known impact of type of anesthesia on outcome after CEA, none of the current studies comparing CEA with CAS addresses the effect of anesthetic choice on perioperative events. In this study, we compare our results of distally protected CAS versus CEA under local anesthesia. METHODS: Clinical data of 345 patients who underwent 372 procedures for carotid artery occlusive disease over a 36-month were retrospectively collected for this analysis. Distal embolic protection was used in CAS procedures. All procedures, both CEA (n = 221, 59%) and CAS (N = 152, 41%), were performed under local anesthesia. The primary outcome measure was aggregate 30-day major ipsilateral stroke and/or death. Follow-up serial Duplex ultrasound examinations were performed. RESULTS: Both patient cohorts were similar in terms of demographic and risk factors, with the exception of a higher incidence of coronary artery disease in the CAS group (59% versus 30%, P <.05). The 30-day stroke and death rates were 3.2% (CAS) and 3.7% (CEA) (P = not significant). Cranial nerve injury only occurred in the CEA patients (2.3%). Perioperative hemodynamic instability was more common among patients in the CAS group (11.9% versus 4.1%, P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous carotid stenting with neuroprotection provides comparable clinical success to CEA performed under local anesthetic. Further studies are warranted to validate the long-term efficacy of CAS and to elucidate patient selection criteria for endovascular carotid revascularization.     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术及颈动脉支架置入术治疗颅外颈动脉硬化狭窄术后早期并发症比较

目的比较颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)及颈动脉支架置入术(carotid stenting,CAS)治疗颅外颈动脉硬化狭窄后早期并发症发生情况,为临床治疗方法的选择提供理论依据。方法 2005年1月-2007年12月,分别采用CEA(CEA组,36例)和CAS(CAS组,27例)治疗63例颅外颈动脉狭窄患者。男42例,女21例;年龄52～79岁,平均67.5岁。左侧28例,右侧35例。颈动脉狭窄度为60%～95%,平均79%。主要临床症状为中风和短暂性脑缺血发作。头颅CT检查:24例有陈旧性脑梗死(cerebral infarction,CI),22例见多发性腔隙性CI,余17例未见明显异常。分析两种术式治疗后7 d内脑部、心血管及局部并发症发生情况。结果术后7 d内CEA组3例(8.3%)出现脑部并发症,2例(5.6%)出现心血管并发症,5例(13.9%)出现局部并发症;CAS组8例(29.6%)出现脑部并发症,1例(3.7%)出现心血管并发症,3例(11.1%)出现局部并发症;CAS组患者脑部并发症发生率明显高于CEA组,差异有统计学意义(χ2=4.855,P=0.028);但两组心血管、局部并发症发生率以及总并发症发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论对于颅外颈动脉硬化狭窄患者,CEA是首选治疗方式。     

双侧颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄的处理策略

目的:探讨双侧颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者的手术适应证、时机和策略.方法:1987年2月至2007年12月共收治74例双侧颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者,其中34例患者症状限于一侧,均施行了一侧颈动脉内膜切除(CEA),其中8例对侧因狭窄>70%或粥样硬化斑块不稳定而行CEA或支架成形(CAS).38例双侧均有症状,15例双侧先后施行CEA;3例一侧行CEA,对侧行CAS;20例仅行单侧CEA.另外2例双侧无症状,均因狭窄>70%而行单侧CEA,其中1例还行对侧CAS.结果:本组74例患者共行93侧CEA,68例术后顺利,2例神经功能障碍加重,2例出现心肌缺血,1例脑出血,1例声音嘶哑.67例患者平均随访4.9年,63例无与术侧颈动脉相关的脑缺血事件发生.结论:颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者只要指征明确,无论对侧颈动脉正常、狭窄甚至闭塞,均应施行CEA.双侧狭窄患者的治疗时机和策略因人而异.CEA术中主要依据电生理监测结果决定是否采用转流.     

颅外段颈动脉狭窄的治疗策略

目的：探讨颅外段颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄的治疗方法。方法回顾性分析上海中山医院血管外科2012年1～6月51例颅外段颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者的临床资料,16例行颈动脉内膜剥脱术（carotid endarterectomy,CEA）,35例行颈动脉支架置入术（ carotid artery stenting ,CAS）。结果51例手术均获成功,1例CAS术后即刻脑卒中,1例CEA术后第3天短暂性脑缺血发作（transient ischemic attack,TIA）,1例CAS术后颈动脉窦压迫。全组术后随访9～15个月,平均13．6月,复查颈动脉B超,无严重再狭窄。结论根据颅外段颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者的相关医学资料,对于有下列情况之一的患者我们倾向于行CEA：①6个月内1次或多次TIA,且颈动脉狭窄度≥70％;②6个月内1次或多次轻度非致残性卒中发作,症状或体征持续超过24小时且颈动脉狭窄度≥70％;③对于经颈部血管CTA和颈动脉全脑血管造影发现的颈动脉狭窄段≥2 cm。对于有下列情况之一的患者我们倾向于行CAS：①无症状性颈动脉狭窄度≥70％;②有症状性狭窄度范围50％～69％;③无症状性颈动脉狭窄度＜70％,但血管造影或其他检查提示狭窄病变处于不稳定状态。     

Comparison of nonneurological events in high-risk patients treated by carotid angioplasty versus endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE: To compare results of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in high cardiac risk patients. METHODS: Patients ineligible for carotid revascularization by North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial/Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study criteria were treated with CAS (n = 11) or CEA (n = 10). RESULTS: Significant numbers had cardiac (CAS 72%, CEA 60%; P = 0.66) and hypertensive (CAS 82%, CEA 80%; P = 0.64) risk factors. Adverse hemodynamic events were more frequent in the CAS group (CAS 73%, CEA 20%; P = 0.03). Major complications were noted in 1 patient in each group (CAS, myocardial infarction; CEA, death). Postoperative stay was similar (CAS 2.1 +/- 1.4, CEA 1.8 +/- 1.1 days; P = 0.60). However, 4 in the CAS group were readmitted within 1 month (congestive heart failure 2, myocardial infarction 1, rest pain 1), compared with no new events in the CEA group (P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Currently, the use of CAS in patients with cardiac risk factors may not be justifiable.     

Endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting: the quest continues

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is still considered the "gold-standard" of the treatment of patients with significant carotid stenosis and has proven its value during past decades. However, endovascular techniques have recently been evolving. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is challenging CEA for the best treatment in patients with carotid stenosis. This review presents the development of CAS according to early reports, results of recent randomized trials, and future perspectives regarding CAS. METHODS: A literature search using the PubMed and Cochrane databases identified articles focusing on the key issues of CEA and CAS. RESULTS: Early nonrandomized reports of CAS showed variable results, and the Stenting and Angioplasty With Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy trial led to United States Food and Drug Administration approval of CAS for the treatment of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. In contrast, recent trials, such as the Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy trial and the Endarterectomy Versus Stenting in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis trial, (re)fuelled the debate between CAS and CEA. In the Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy trial, the complication rate of ipsilateral stroke or death at 30 days was 6.8% for CAS versus 6.3% for CEA and showed that CAS failed the noninferiority test. Analysis of the Endarterectomy Versus Stenting in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis trial showed a significant higher risk for death or any stroke at 30 days for endovascular treatment (9.6%) compared with CEA (3.9%). Other aspects-such as evolving best medical treatment, timely intervention, interventionalists' experience, and analysis of plaque composition-may have important influences on the future treatment of patients with carotid artery stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: CAS performed with or without embolic-protection devices can be an effective treatment for patients with carotid artery stenosis. However, presently there is no evidence that CAS provides better results in the prevention of stroke compared with CEA.     

颈动脉狭窄血管内支架植入和内膜切除术治疗的临床选择

目的 探讨在不同条件下如何合理选择颈动脉狭窄的治疗方式.方法 回顾性分析经颈动脉血管内支架植入术(CAS)和颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)治疗的133例颈动脉狭窄患者的临床资料.其中46例患者行CAS,87例行CEA.观察两组患者的住院天数和治疗前后的美国国立卫生研究院卒中评分量表(NIHSS)评分、前向血流,治疗前和治疗后1-24个月狭窄处收缩期血流速度峰值及狭窄程度,以及治疗后死亡、脑卒中或心肌梗死等终点事件的发生率.结果 两组住院天数和治疗后NIHSS评分>20层次时差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组治疗前后的前向血流评定差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);多普勒频谱测定两组治疗前后颈动脉狭窄程度有显著性差异(P<0.05);两组治疗后30 d内,终点事件的累计发生率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);31 d～2年终点事件的累计发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);6个月后再狭窄发生率CAS组高于CEA组.结论 CAS和CEA对颈动脉狭窄的效果无显著差异,狭窄的部位、原因及对侧病变是选择CAS和CEA的重要因素.     

Misconceptions regarding the adequacy of best medical intervention alone for asymptomatic carotid stenosis

BackgroundMedical intervention (risk factor identification, lifestyle coaching, and medication) for stroke prevention has improved significantly. It is likely that no more than 5.5% of persons with advanced asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) will now benefit from a carotid procedure during their lifetime. However, some question the adequacy of medical intervention alone for such persons and propose using markers of high stroke risk to intervene with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and/or carotid angioplasty/stenting (CAS). Our aim was to examine the scientific validity and implications of this proposal.MethodsWe reviewed the evidence for using medical intervention alone or with additional CEA or CAS in persons with ACS. We also reviewed the evidence regarding the validity of using commonly cited makers of high stroke risk to select such persons for CEA or CAS, including markers proposed by the European Society for Vascular Surgery in 2017.ResultsRandomized trials of medical intervention alone versus additional CEA showed a definite statistically significant CEA stroke prevention benefit for ACS only for selected average surgical risk men aged less than 75 to 80 years with 60% or greater stenosis using the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria. However, the most recent measurements of stroke rate with ACS using medical intervention alone are overall lower than for those who had CEA or CAS in randomized trials. Randomized trials of CEA versus CAS in persons with ACS were underpowered. However, the trend was for higher stroke and death rates with CAS. There are no randomized trial results related to comparing current optimal medical intervention with CEA or CAS. Commonly cited markers of high stroke risk in relation to ACS lack specificity, have not been assessed in conjunction with current optimal medical intervention, and have not been shown in randomized trials to identify those who benefit from a carotid procedure in addition to current optimal medical intervention.ConclusionsMedical intervention has an established role in the current routine management of persons with ACS. Stroke risk stratification studies using current optimal medical intervention alone are the highest research priority for identifying persons likely to benefit from adding a carotid procedure.     

Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Carotid Stenting: an Updated Review of Randomized Trials and Subgroup Analyses

Atherosclerotic disease of the carotid arteries is responsible for a significant portion of ischemic strokes. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is currently the accepted standard of treatment for patients with severe symptomatic carotid stenosis. In the past few years, however, carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has emerged as a potential alternative endovascular treatment strategy for this disorder. In fact, spurred by the positive results of single center studies and small, pivotal randomized trials, some even consider CAS as the treatment modality of choice, especially in presumably surgical high-risk patients. Yet, randomized trials directly comparing CAS with CEA are sparse and have produced conflicting results.

The aim of this article is to review the current trial data on this issue and to define the role of these techniques for the management of two important subgroups of patients.

An updated meta-analysis of seven randomized trials comparing CEA with CAS demonstrates that CAS is associated with a significantly increased risk of any stroke or death within 30 days (OR. 1.41, 95% CI 1.07-1.87, p<0.05). Focusing on patients with a symptomatic carotid stenosis, there was also a significant difference in the odds of treatment-related stroke and death between CAS and CEA (OR, 1.41; CI 1.05 to 1.88, p < 0.05). Data on all disabling strokes and deaths within 30 days was available from five trials. The odds of disabling stroke or death at 30 days were similar in the endovascular and surgical group (OR, 1.33, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.98).

Overall, these data do not justify a blind enthusiasm for CAS and a widespread use of this procedure for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. On the other hand, a closer inspection of the current literature on elderly patients and those with a contralateral carotid occlusion clearly indicates that CAS and CEA already now have a complementary role. While elderly patients should preferentially be treated with CEA, CAS appears to be the treatment of choice in patients with a symptomatic carotid artery stenosis and a contralateral carotid occlusion in experienced centers.     

颈动脉狭窄患者内膜剥脱术与支架植入术1年疗效Meta分析

目的利用Meta分析法探讨颈动脉内膜剥脱术（CEA）与颈动脉支架植入术（CAS）对颈动脉狭窄治疗1年内死亡和卒中、死亡、卒中、重度再狭窄及闭塞事件发生情况并进行评价。方法制定原始文献的纳入标准、排除标准及检索策略,搜索关于CEA及CAS治疗对颈动脉狭窄的对照研究。应用RevMan4.2.2软件对纳入文献进行定量评价。以优势比（OR值）及双侧95%可信区间（CI）作为效应尺度进行分析。结果纳入本研究的文献共6篇,1037例患者接受CAS治疗,1681例接受CEA治疗,将发生死亡和卒中、死亡、卒中事件统计数据合并;累计1586例接受CAS治疗,2196例接受CEA治疗,进行再狭窄及闭塞的统计数据合并。术后1年内CAS与CEA患者死亡和卒中、死亡、卒中事件发生差异无统计学意义,其OR值分别为0.81（95%CI0.56～1.18）、0.75（95%CI0.47～1.19）、0.78（95%CI0.53～1.16）。CAS患者再狭窄率高于CEA患者[OR=1.99（95%CI1.44～2.74）,P〈0.05）。结论对于颈动脉狭窄患者,CEA与CAS的1年死亡和卒中、死亡、卒中事件发生无明显差异,CAS术后重度再狭窄及闭塞率为CEA术的1.99倍。由于在缺乏足够数量的随机对照试验的情况下,纳入部分非随机对照试验的Meta分析,使论证强度受到一定的限制,有待更多大样本高质量随机对照试验对本研究结果进一步验证。