Xu Jianguo, L. Xiaojun, Huang Yabo, L. Bo, Liu Yizhi, C. Gang
{"title":"Clinical outcome analysis of carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting for internal carotid artery stenosis","authors":"Xu Jianguo, L. Xiaojun, Huang Yabo, L. Bo, Liu Yizhi, C. Gang","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1001-2346.2019.11.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nTo investigate the safety and efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) for the treatment of internal carotid artery stenosis. \n \n \nMethods \nThis study retrospectively analyzed 136 patients who underwent surgical treatment of internal carotid artery stenosis at the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from July 2017 to December 2018. Among those, 78 underwent CEA (CEA group) at Department of Neurosurgery and the other 58 underwent CAS (CAS group) at Department of Interventional Radiology. General data, time of surgery, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization cost, and incidence of postoperative restenosis were compared between the 2 groups. \n \n \nResults \nThere was no difference in the age, gender, lesion side, preoperative comorbidity, preoperative complication or preoperative internal carotid artery stenosis rate between 2 groups (all P>0.05). There was no significant difference in operation time, postoperative complications or the incidence of postoperative restenosis between 2 groups (all P>0.05). The follow-up period was 3 to 21 months. The postoperative hospital stay in CEA group was shorter than that in CAS group (6.5±2.3 d vs. 8.3±1.4 d, P<0.01), and the hospitalization cost in CEA group was lower than that in CAS group (57±10 thousand yuans vs. 103±18 thousand yuans, P<0.01). \n \n \nConclusions \nFor patients with internal carotid artery stenosis, both CEA and CAS seem safe and effective. In terms of hospital length-of-stay and economic factors, CEA has certain advantages over CAS. \n \n \nKey words: \nCarotid stenosis; Endarterectomy, carotid; Carotid artery stenting; Treatment outcome","PeriodicalId":10100,"journal":{"name":"中华神经外科杂志","volume":"35 1","pages":"1112-1116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华神经外科杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1001-2346.2019.11.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
To investigate the safety and efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) for the treatment of internal carotid artery stenosis.
Methods
This study retrospectively analyzed 136 patients who underwent surgical treatment of internal carotid artery stenosis at the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from July 2017 to December 2018. Among those, 78 underwent CEA (CEA group) at Department of Neurosurgery and the other 58 underwent CAS (CAS group) at Department of Interventional Radiology. General data, time of surgery, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization cost, and incidence of postoperative restenosis were compared between the 2 groups.
Results
There was no difference in the age, gender, lesion side, preoperative comorbidity, preoperative complication or preoperative internal carotid artery stenosis rate between 2 groups (all P>0.05). There was no significant difference in operation time, postoperative complications or the incidence of postoperative restenosis between 2 groups (all P>0.05). The follow-up period was 3 to 21 months. The postoperative hospital stay in CEA group was shorter than that in CAS group (6.5±2.3 d vs. 8.3±1.4 d, P<0.01), and the hospitalization cost in CEA group was lower than that in CAS group (57±10 thousand yuans vs. 103±18 thousand yuans, P<0.01).
Conclusions
For patients with internal carotid artery stenosis, both CEA and CAS seem safe and effective. In terms of hospital length-of-stay and economic factors, CEA has certain advantages over CAS.
Key words:
Carotid stenosis; Endarterectomy, carotid; Carotid artery stenting; Treatment outcome
目的探讨颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)和颈动脉支架术(CAS)治疗颈内动脉狭窄的安全性和有效性。方法回顾性分析2017年7月至2018年12月在苏州大学附属第一医院接受颈内动脉狭窄手术治疗的136例患者。其中78例在神经外科接受了CEA(CEA组),58例在介入放射科接受了CAS(CAS组)。比较两组的一般数据、手术时间、术后并发症、术后住院时间、住院费用和术后再狭窄发生率。结果两组患者的年龄、性别、病变部位、术前合并症、术前并发症及术前颈内动脉狭窄率差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05),术后并发症或术后再狭窄发生率两组比较均有显著性差异(均P>0.05),随访时间3~21个月。CEA组术后住院时间短于CAS组(6.5±2.3 d vs.8.3±1.4 d,P<0.01),住院费用低于CAS组(57±1万元vs.103±1.8万元,P<0.01)。就住院时间和经济因素而言,CEA比CAS有一定的优势。关键词:颈动脉狭窄;颈动脉内膜切除术;颈动脉支架术;治疗结果
期刊介绍:
Chinese Journal of Neurosurgery is one of the series of journals organized by the Chinese Medical Association under the supervision of the China Association for Science and Technology. The journal is aimed at neurosurgeons and related researchers, and reports on the leading scientific research results and clinical experience in the field of neurosurgery, as well as the basic theoretical research closely related to neurosurgery.Chinese Journal of Neurosurgery has been included in many famous domestic search organizations, such as China Knowledge Resources Database, China Biomedical Journal Citation Database, Chinese Biomedical Journal Literature Database, China Science Citation Database, China Biomedical Literature Database, China Science and Technology Paper Citation Statistical Analysis Database, and China Science and Technology Journal Full Text Database, Wanfang Data Database of Medical Journals, etc.