颈动脉重度和极重度狭窄的治疗策略和并发症分析

目的 :比较重度颈动脉狭窄重度(70%～90%)和极重度(90%以上)病人行颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy, CEA)与颈动脉支架置入术(carotid artery stenting, CAS)的治疗效果和并发症发生情况。方法:回顾性分析2015年1月至2017年12月长海医院收治的463例重度颈动脉狭窄病人接受手术治疗的临床资料。结果:重度颈动脉狭窄的病人202例。CEA组62例与CAS组140例术后再发卒中的差异(3.2%比6.7%)无统计学意义(P=0.181)。CAS组术后再狭窄2.2%,CEA组无再狭窄,差异无统计学意义(P=0.240)。CEA组术后舌偏位、言语不清的发生率4.8%和3.2%,CAS术后无此两种并发症(P=0.009和0.033)。极重度颈动脉狭窄病人261例。CEA组95例和CAS组166例术后再发卒中发生率差异(1.1%比4.5%)无统计学意义(P=0.135),但CAS组较多。CAS术后再狭窄的发生率5.7%,而CEA术后无再狭窄(P=0.017)。CEA组术后发生舌偏位和言语不清4.2%与3.2%,同样CAS组无该并发症(P=0.008和0.021)。结论:CEA与CAS应用于颈动脉重度狭窄病人的治疗效果差异无统计学意义,但CAS术后无神经系统并发症。颈动脉极重度狭窄病人行CEA的治疗效果明显优于CAS。     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术与颈动脉支架置入术治疗颅外颈动脉狭窄的临床疗效比较

目的比较颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)与颈动脉支架置入术(carotid stenting,CAS)治疗颅外颈动脉狭窄的临床疗效,为颅外颈动脉狭窄的CEA和CAS治疗提供更丰富的临床循证医学证据。方法将40例有手术指征的颈动脉狭窄患者按治疗方法的不同分为CEA组和CAS组。2组患者均行相应手术治疗,观察、比较其临床疗效。结果 2组患者围术期并发症发生率、术后3个月2组患者的心血管并发症、脑卒中及死亡等主要终点事件发生率的差异均无统计学意义(P0.05);随访12个月,2组术侧颈动脉再狭窄、致残或致死性卒中发生率比较差异也无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论对于具有手术指征的颅外颈动脉狭窄患者,CEA与CAS具有同样的临床疗效,且安全性均较高;但仍需要大样本多中心长期循证医学证据支持。     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术和颈动脉支架成形术治疗缺血性脑卒中的中期效果比较:单中心经验

目的探讨颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)和颈动脉支架成型术(CAS)治疗缺血性脑卒中的近中期效果及围术期并发症。方法根据入组标准将颈动脉重度狭窄病例随机入组(CEA组71例,CAS组108例),比较两组围术期卒中、死亡、心梗及并发症发生率,门诊随访记录卒中、死亡、心梗及再狭窄率,比较两组临床结局。结果两组手术技术成功率100%,CEA组30天总卒中发生率显著低于CAS组(2.82%vs 12.04%,P=0.029),两组大卒中、小卒中各自发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05);两组30天死亡、心肌梗死发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05),但死亡仅出现在CAS组。CEA和CAS组高灌注综合征发生率差异无统计学意义(11.27%vs 13.89%,P=0.61);CEA组术后高血压发生率高(8.45%vs 2.78%,P=0.04),CAS组低血压发生率高(1.41%vs 10.19%,P=0.046)。两组切口血肿发生率差异无统计学意义(5.63%vs 9.26%,P=0.38)。平均随访24.7月,两组总卒中/短暂性脑缺血发作、同侧卒中、死亡发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05);但CAS组总卒中/死亡率高于CEA组(13.55%vs4.22%,P=0.045)。CAS组再狭窄(50%)发生率明显高于CEA组(13.46%vs 4.22%,P=0.043),再狭窄多引起非致残性卒中复发。结论 CEA和CAS均可有效预防卒中,CAS有更高的围术期卒中/死亡发生率,CEA具有更低的再狭窄率,术后再狭窄往往导致术后非致残性卒中复发。     

分期颈动脉内膜剥脱与支架治疗双侧颈动脉狭窄的临床疗效

目的对比分析分期颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)与分期颈动脉支架植入术(CAS)治疗双侧颈动脉狭窄的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2007年1月至2015年1月中日友好医院收治的24例双侧颈动脉狭窄患者临床资料。其中症状性患者18例,无症状患者6例。应用CEA和CAS分期处理双侧颈动脉狭窄,观察术后30天及术后1年的主要不良事件发生率。结果 15例患者共30例次行分期CEA,其中28例次采用人工血管补片及转流管,2例次行外翻式剥脱术。9例患者共18例次行分期CAS,手术成功率均为100%。CEA组中,1例(6.7%)出现声音嘶哑,1例(6.7%)出现颈部血肿并感染,2例(13.3%)出现过度灌注综合征,1例(6.7%)术后出现出血性大卒中。CAS组中,3例(33.3%)出现血液动力学抑制。术后1年随访时,CAS组中1例(11.1%)出现心肌梗死。CEA组与CAS组未发现再狭窄,无缺血性脑血管事件发作,无死亡发生。两组主要不良事件比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),次要不良事件中未出现血流动力学抑制事件和使用血管升压药物治疗比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论分期CEA与分期CAS治疗双侧颈动脉狭窄均有效,而CAS治疗出现血流动力学抑制几率大,治疗方案的选择应个体化。     

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.     

颈动脉支架成形术后再狭窄的诊治策略

颅外颈动脉狭窄的治疗包括药物治疗、颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)和颈动脉支架成形术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)等。与CEA相比,CAS最主要的优点在于微创,但术后远期同样存在再狭窄的风险。本文将对CAS术后再狭窄这个特殊并发症的诊治策略作一介绍。1 CAS术后再狭窄的发生率CAS术后再狭窄的发生率取决于再狭窄的定     

高危颈动脉狭窄患者内膜剥脱术和支架术的对比分析

目的对比颈动脉内膜剥脱术（carotid endarterectomy,CEA）与颈动脉支架置入术（carotid artery stenting,CAS）在治疗高危颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄中的作用。方法对58例颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者进行回顾性对照研究。其中32例为CEA组;26例为CAS组。术后30d、6个月、1年均进行颈部B超、CTA复查或DSA和神经系统检查。初级观察终点设定为术后30d内发生死亡、卒中事件、心血管不良事件,或随访6个月内的死亡或同侧卒中事件;次级观察终点为与CEA或CAS相关的并发症,或1年内的重度再狭窄。比较2组术后治疗的效果。结果CEA组有3例达到初级观察终点,发生率为9.4%;CAS组有4例达到初级观察点,累积发生率为15.4%（χ2=0.086,P=0.769）。CEA组有4例达到次级观察终点,发生率为12.5%;CAS组有4例达到次级观察终点,发生率为15.4%（χ2=0.000,P=1.000）。结论CAS在治疗高危颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄时,在安全性和有效性方面与CEA是相同的。     

颈动脉内膜剥脱与支架置入术患者围手术期脑灌注对比分析

目的:通过全脑CT灌注成像(WBCTP)分析并比较颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)与颈动脉支架成形术(CAS)对颈动脉狭窄患者围手术期脑灌注的影响及差异。方法:参照北美症状性颈动脉内膜切除术(NASCET)标准,选择32例经全脑动脉造影确诊颈动脉狭窄的患者,其中行CEA 11例、行CAS 21例。所有患者术前、术后1周均行WBCTP检查采集脑灌注数据,分析并比较两组相对脑血流量(r CBF)、相对脑血容量(r CBV)、相对平均通过时间(r MTT)的变化及差异。结果:与术前比较,两组患者术后r CBF、r CBV、r MTT均明显改善(均P0.05),两组间以上指标变化程度均无统计学差异(均P0.05)。结论:CEA、CAS两种术式均可改善颈动脉狭窄患者脑灌注,且疗效相似。     

颈动脉再通术后重度再狭窄病变的诊治策略

目的评估颈动脉支架成形术(CAS)和颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)治疗颅外颈动脉狭窄后重度再狭窄的诊断和治疗策略。方法回顾性分析2012年1月至2017年1月在复旦大学附属中山医院接受颈动脉再通手术治疗后发生严重再狭窄而二次手术治疗的15例患者资料,其中CEA术后再狭窄3例,CAS术后再狭窄12例,均通过血管多普勒超声检查和数字减影血管造影明确诊断。结果对于CEA术后再狭窄的患者,治疗包括脑保护下CAS手术(2例)、球囊扩张(1例);对于CAS术后再狭窄的患者,治疗包括再次行CEA及补片血管成形术(7例)、球囊扩张(3例)、再次行脑保护下CAS术(2例)。患者围术期无脑卒中或死亡发生。1例CAS术后再狭窄患者采用单纯球囊扩张治疗后,6个月随访再次发生颈动脉再狭窄且伴有短暂性脑缺血发作的症状,接受CEA及补片血管成形术,术后随访1年显示颈动脉血流通畅。其余患者在术后随访过程中未见脑卒中或再狭窄发生。结论血管多普勒超声检查和数字减影血管造影是诊断颅外颈动脉再通术后再狭窄的重要手段。对于重度再狭窄的患者,需注意个体化治疗方式,围术期疗效及中期再狭窄复发率较满意,但仍需密切随访,注意再狭窄复发的风险。     

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。     

Sekundärprophylaxe symptomatischer Karotisstenosen

The SPACE trial compared risk and effectiveness of stent-protected angioplasty (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with symptomatic stenoses. In the intention-to-treat analysis of the entire study population of 1,214 patients, primary endpoint events (ipsilateral stroke or death occurring between randomization and day 30) occurred in 6.92% of the CAS group and 6.45% of the CEA group. The 95% confidence interval (CI) of the absolute risk difference ranged from –1.94% to +2.87%; therefore, superiority could not be proven. The same was true for the per-protocol analysis. No significant differences between the two treatment groups were found either for the primary endpoint or for any of the secondary endpoints. There were also no differences found regarding short-term prevention. The endpoint of ipsilateral ischemic stroke up to 1 year plus any periprocedural stroke or death occurred in 8.7% of the CAS patients and 7.6% of the CEA patients [odds ratio (OR) 1.16; 95% CI 0.76–1.75]. Following the per-protocol analysis, this endpoint occurred in 8.7% of the CAS patients compared with 6.7% of the CEA patients (OR 1.32; 95% CI 0.85–2.05). Recurrent stenoses, defined as at least 70% following ultrasound criteria, were significantly more common in the CAS group (ITT data: 7.7% vs. 4.1%; OR 1.98; 95%CI 1.19–3.28). Surgery remains the gold standard for treating patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. However, in the hands of an experienced practitioner with a proven low periprocedural complication rate, stenting is an alternative treatment option.     

Intrapatient comparison of restenosis between carotid artery angioplasty with stenting and carotid endarterectomy

AIM: Comparison of restenosis in patients who underwent both carotid artery angioplasty with stenting (CAS) and contralateral carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: From our CAS data registry (1998-present) all patients with a history of contralateral CEA at any other time were selected (n = 63). Mean age was 70.6, SD = 6.8 for CAS and 68.2, SD = 6.1 for CEA and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis was present in 24% of patients pre-CAS and 40% pre-CEA. All CEAs were primary interventions, 19% of CAS were secondary to restenosis after previous ipsilateral CEA. All patients were followed up prospectively with duplex at 1 year (CAS: n = 58, CEA: n = 59), 2 years (CAS: n = 44, CEA: n = 53), 3 years (CAS: n = 27, CEA: n = 41), and every year thereafter. Within each patient we compared restenosis (>50%) between CAS and CEA procedures. RESULTS: After a follow-up of 28.7 months for CAS (SD = 16.9) and 54.4 months for CEA (SD = 39.5) the rate of = or > 50% restenosis for CAS vs CEA at 1, 2, and 3 years was 23% vs 10%; 31% vs 19%; and 34 vs 24%, respectively (log rank P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Our intrapatient comparison of patients who underwent both CAS and contralateral CEA did not reveal significant difference in restenosis between both procedures.     

Alert for increased long-term follow-up after carotid artery stenting: results of a prospective, randomized, single-center trial of carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been shown to be effective in stroke prevention for patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Although several prospective randomized trials indicate that carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an alternative but not superior treatment modality, there is still a significant lack of long-term data comparing CAS with CEA. This study presents long-term results of a prospective, randomized, single-center trial. METHODS: Between August 1999 and April 2002, 87 patients with a symptomatic high-grade internal carotid artery stenosis (>70%) were randomized to CAS or CEA. After a median observation time of 66 +/- 14.2 months (CAS) and 64 +/- 12.1 months (CEA), 42 patients in each group were re-evaluated retrospectively by clinical examination and documentation of neurologic events. Duplex ultrasound imaging was performed in 61 patients (32 CAS, 29 CEA), and patients with restenosis >70% were re-evaluated by angiography. RESULTS: During the observation period, 23 patients (25.2%) died (10 CAS, 13 CEA), and three were lost to follow up. The incidence of strokes was higher after CAS, with four strokes in 42 CAS patients vs none in 42 CEA patients. One transient ischemic attack occurred in each group. A significantly higher rate of restenosis >70% (6 of 32 vs 0 of 29) occurred after CAS compared with CEA. Five of 32 CAS patients (15.6%) presented with high-grade (>70%) restenosis as an indication for secondary intervention or surgical stent removal, and three presented with neurologic symptoms. No CEA patients required reintervention (P < .05 vs CAS). A medium-grade (<70%) restenosis was detected in eight of 32 CAS patients (25%) and in one of 29 CEA patients (3.4%). In five of 32 CAS (15.6%) and three of 29 CEA patients (10.3%), a high-grade stenosis of the contralateral carotid artery was observed and treated during the observation period. CONCLUSION: The long-term results of this prospective, randomized, single-center study revealed a high incidence of relevant restenosis and neurologic symptoms after CAS. CEA seems to be superior to CAS concerning the development of restenosis and significant prevention of stroke. However, the long-term results of the ongoing multicenter trials have to be awaited for a final conclusion.     

Durability of surgery for restenosis after carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND: The role of carotid surgery for the management of restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is challenged by carotid artery stenting (CAS). We reviewed redo CEA in a consecutive series of patients to determine the safety, durability, and long-term benefit associated with repeat surgical treatment for restenosis. METHODS: A consecutive series of 73 redo procedures in 72 patients (57% men) with a mean age 66 years (range, 49-81 years) was analyzed. The mean interval between prior CEA and redo CEA was 53 months (range, 8-192 months). Operative indications included symptomatic restenosis in 28 patients (38%). A patch angioplasty was performed in 62 patients (85%). The main outcome measures included perioperative and late stroke and death, and the development of secondary restenosis. RESULTS: There were no perioperative deaths or strokes. During a mean follow-up of 52 months (range, 12-144 months), the Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival was 85% at 5 years. At 5 years, the cumulative rate of freedom from all strokes was 98%, and the freedom from ipsilateral stroke was 100%. After secondary procedures, re-recurrent stenosis > or =50% occurred in 10 patients (13.7%). The cumulative freedom from re-restenosis (> or =50%) was 85% at 5 years. Five patients (7%) received tertiary carotid reconstructions. CONCLUSION: Repeat CEA for recurrent stenosis can be performed safely with excellent long-term protection from stroke. These data provide a standard against which the results of CAS can be compared.     

Meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing carotid endarterectomy and endovascular treatment.

OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: In order to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of carotid angioplasty with or without stent placement (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) we performed a meta-analysis of the presently available randomized studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multiple electronic health database search on all randomized trials describing CAS compared with CEA in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis was performed. RESULTS: Seven trials totalling 2972 patients (1480 randomized to CEA and 1492 randomized to CAS) were included in the meta-analysis. Results significantly favoured CEA over CAS in terms of death or any stroke at 30 days after procedure; the risk of death, any stroke, or myocardial infarction at 30 days; ipsilateral ischaemic stroke at 30 days; any stroke at 30 days; death or stroke at 6 months; and the risk of procedural failure. There was a significantly reduced risk of cranial neuropathy at 30 days after CAS. There was no significant difference between CAS and CEA groups in the odds of death or disabling stroke at 30 days, death or stroke at 1 year after the procedure, and ipsilateral intracerebral bleeding at 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that CEA can be performed with more safety than CAS. As a result, CEA remains the "gold standard" treatment for suitable de novo carotid stenosis and CAS should only be performed within randomized trials of stenting versus surgery.     

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。     

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.     

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。