颈动脉支架植入术与颈动脉内膜剥脱术后的脑缺血病变:系统回顾和元分析

Georgios Loufopoulos, Vasiliki Manaki, Panagiotis Tasoudis, Andreas Stylianos Meintanopoulos, George N Kouvelos, George Ntaios, Konstantinos Spanos
{"title":"颈动脉支架植入术与颈动脉内膜剥脱术后的脑缺血病变:系统回顾和元分析","authors":"Georgios Loufopoulos, Vasiliki Manaki, Panagiotis Tasoudis, Andreas Stylianos Meintanopoulos, George N Kouvelos, George Ntaios, Konstantinos Spanos","doi":"10.1101/2024.03.18.24304513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated similar outcomes in terms of ischemic stroke incidence after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) in asymptomatic carotid disease, while CEA seems to be the first option for symptomatic carotid disease. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess incidence of silent cerebral microembolization detected by Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) following these procedures.\nMethods: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases including comparative studies involving symptomatic or asymptomatic patients undergoing either CEA or CAS, and reporting on new cerebral ischemic lesions in post-operative MRI. The primary outcome was the newly detected cerebral ischemic lesions. Pooled effect estimates for all outcomes were calculated using the random-effects model. Pre-specified random effects meta-regression and subgroup analysis were conducted to examine the impact of moderator variables on the presence of new cerebral ischemic lesions. Results: 25 studies reporting on total 1827 CEA and 1500 CAS interventions fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The incidence of new cerebral ischemic lesions was significantly lower after CEA comparing to CAS, regardless of the time of MRI assessment (first 24 hours; OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.17-0.64, p<0.001), (the first 72 hours, OR: 0.25, 95% CI 0.18-0.36, p<0.001), (generally within a week after the operation; OR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.17-0.34, p<0.001). Also, the rate of stroke (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.23-0.63, p<0.001) and the presence of contralateral new cerebral ischemic lesions (OR: 0.16, 95% CI 0.08-0.32, p<0.001) were less frequent after CEA. Subgroup analysis based on the study design and the use of embolic protection device during CAS showed consistently lower rates of new lesions after CEA.\nConclusions: CEA demonstrates significant lower rates of new silent cerebral microembolization, as detected by MRI in postoperative period, compared to CAS.","PeriodicalId":501051,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Surgery","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ischemic cerebral lesions after Carotid Stenting versus Carotid Endarterectomy: A Systematic review and Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Georgios Loufopoulos, Vasiliki Manaki, Panagiotis Tasoudis, Andreas Stylianos Meintanopoulos, George N Kouvelos, George Ntaios, Konstantinos Spanos\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.03.18.24304513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated similar outcomes in terms of ischemic stroke incidence after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) in asymptomatic carotid disease, while CEA seems to be the first option for symptomatic carotid disease. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess incidence of silent cerebral microembolization detected by Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) following these procedures.\\nMethods: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases including comparative studies involving symptomatic or asymptomatic patients undergoing either CEA or CAS, and reporting on new cerebral ischemic lesions in post-operative MRI. The primary outcome was the newly detected cerebral ischemic lesions. Pooled effect estimates for all outcomes were calculated using the random-effects model. Pre-specified random effects meta-regression and subgroup analysis were conducted to examine the impact of moderator variables on the presence of new cerebral ischemic lesions. Results: 25 studies reporting on total 1827 CEA and 1500 CAS interventions fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The incidence of new cerebral ischemic lesions was significantly lower after CEA comparing to CAS, regardless of the time of MRI assessment (first 24 hours; OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.17-0.64, p<0.001), (the first 72 hours, OR: 0.25, 95% CI 0.18-0.36, p<0.001), (generally within a week after the operation; OR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.17-0.34, p<0.001). Also, the rate of stroke (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.23-0.63, p<0.001) and the presence of contralateral new cerebral ischemic lesions (OR: 0.16, 95% CI 0.08-0.32, p<0.001) were less frequent after CEA. Subgroup analysis based on the study design and the use of embolic protection device during CAS showed consistently lower rates of new lesions after CEA.\\nConclusions: CEA demonstrates significant lower rates of new silent cerebral microembolization, as detected by MRI in postoperative period, compared to CAS.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501051,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Surgery\",\"volume\":\"85 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.18.24304513\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.18.24304513","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:最近的随机对照试验表明,无症状颈动脉疾病患者接受颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)或颈动脉支架植入术(CAS)后缺血性卒中的发生率相似,而CEA似乎是无症状颈动脉疾病患者的首选。本荟萃分析旨在评估这些手术后通过磁共振成像(MRI)检测到的无声脑微栓塞的发生率:使用 PubMed、Scopus 和 Cochrane 数据库进行了系统性检索,包括涉及接受 CEA 或 CAS 的无症状或无症状患者的比较研究,并报告了术后 MRI 中新的脑缺血病变。主要结果是新发现的脑缺血病变。所有结果的汇总效应估计值均采用随机效应模型计算。进行了预先指定的随机效应元回归和亚组分析,以研究调节变量对出现新的脑缺血病变的影响。结果:25 项研究共报告了 1827 例 CEA 和 1500 例 CAS 干预,均符合资格标准。与 CAS 相比,无论 MRI 评估时间(最初 24 小时;OR:0.33,95% CI:0.17-0.64,p<0.001)、(最初 72 小时,OR:0.25,95% CI:0.18-0.36,p<0.001)、(一般在术后一周内;OR:0.24,95% CI:0.17-0.34,p<0.001),CEA 术后新发脑缺血病变的发生率均显著降低。此外,CEA术后中风率(OR:0.38,95% CI:0.23-0.63,p<0.001)和出现对侧新的脑缺血病灶(OR:0.16,95% CI:0.08-0.32,p<0.001)的发生率也较低。基于研究设计和CAS期间使用栓塞保护装置的亚组分析表明,CEA术后新发病变的发生率一直较低:结论:与 CAS 相比,CEA 术后通过磁共振成像检测到的新发无声脑微栓塞率明显较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ischemic cerebral lesions after Carotid Stenting versus Carotid Endarterectomy: A Systematic review and Meta-Analysis
Background: Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated similar outcomes in terms of ischemic stroke incidence after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) in asymptomatic carotid disease, while CEA seems to be the first option for symptomatic carotid disease. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess incidence of silent cerebral microembolization detected by Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) following these procedures. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases including comparative studies involving symptomatic or asymptomatic patients undergoing either CEA or CAS, and reporting on new cerebral ischemic lesions in post-operative MRI. The primary outcome was the newly detected cerebral ischemic lesions. Pooled effect estimates for all outcomes were calculated using the random-effects model. Pre-specified random effects meta-regression and subgroup analysis were conducted to examine the impact of moderator variables on the presence of new cerebral ischemic lesions. Results: 25 studies reporting on total 1827 CEA and 1500 CAS interventions fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The incidence of new cerebral ischemic lesions was significantly lower after CEA comparing to CAS, regardless of the time of MRI assessment (first 24 hours; OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.17-0.64, p<0.001), (the first 72 hours, OR: 0.25, 95% CI 0.18-0.36, p<0.001), (generally within a week after the operation; OR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.17-0.34, p<0.001). Also, the rate of stroke (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.23-0.63, p<0.001) and the presence of contralateral new cerebral ischemic lesions (OR: 0.16, 95% CI 0.08-0.32, p<0.001) were less frequent after CEA. Subgroup analysis based on the study design and the use of embolic protection device during CAS showed consistently lower rates of new lesions after CEA. Conclusions: CEA demonstrates significant lower rates of new silent cerebral microembolization, as detected by MRI in postoperative period, compared to CAS.
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
期刊最新文献
The VIPR-1 trial (Visualizing Ischemia in the Pancreatic Remnant) - Assessing the role of intraoperative indocyanine green perfusion of the transected pancreas in predicting postoperative pancreatic leaks: protocol for a prospective phase II trial. Insulin-dependence as a Predictor of Shortened Cancer-specific Survival in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Multi-Institutional Study from the United States Neuroendocrine Study Group Chyme Reinfusion Practices in the Neonatal Population Traumatic Amputations - A Nationwide Epidemiological Analysis of a developing country over 16 years Development and Validation of Collaborative Robot-assisted Cutting Method for Iliac Crest Flap Raising: Randomized Crossover Trial
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1