颈内动脉狭窄——血管成形术加支架植入还是动脉内膜切除术?回顾性、单中心、观察性研究。

Konrad Woronowicz, Zbigniew Krasiński, Sebastian Łukawiecki, Wojciech Gotlibowski, Sleiman Sebastian Aboul-Hassan
{"title":"颈内动脉狭窄——血管成形术加支架植入还是动脉内膜切除术?回顾性、单中心、观察性研究。","authors":"Konrad Woronowicz, Zbigniew Krasiński, Sebastian Łukawiecki, Wojciech Gotlibowski, Sleiman Sebastian Aboul-Hassan","doi":"10.5604/01.3001.0054.6996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>&lt;b&gt;Introduction:&lt;/b&gt; Carotid artery stenosis is one of the main causes of ischemic stroke globally. Carotid revascularization (stenting or endarterectomy) has proved to be an effective form of treatment, superior to medical therapy alone in stroke prevention.&lt;b&gt;Aim:&lt;/b&gt; This study aimed to investigate the impact of carotid artery stenting (CAS) &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) on outcomes in patients treated for unilateral internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis.&lt;b&gt;Methods:&lt;/b&gt; Between January 2021 and December 2021, 131 patients with stenosed unilateral ICA undergoing primary isolated ICA intervention were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups, those who underwent CEA (n = 87) and those who underwent CAS (n = 44). Propensity score matching (PSM) selected 35 pairs and both groups were comparable for all baseline characteristics and well balanced.&lt;b&gt;Results:&lt;/b&gt; In the unmatched cohort, CEA and CAS had comparable long-term outcomes in terms of mortality. Survival at 12, 24, and 36 months was 95.4 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 95.5%, 92.0 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 95.5%, and 92.0 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 95.5%, respectively (p Log-rank = 0.47). However, CEA was associated with a reduced incidence of stroke at follow-up. Freedom from stroke at 12, 24, and 36 months was 98.9 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 90.9%, 97.6 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 86.2%, and 97.6 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 86.2%, respectively (p Log-rank = 0.011). In the matched cohort, CEA and CAS had comparable long- -term outcomes in terms of mortality. Survival at 12, 24, and 36 months was 94.3 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 94.3%, 91.4 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 94.3%, and 91.4 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 94.3%, respectively (p Log-rank = 0.65). However, CEA was associated with a reduced incidence of stroke at follow-up. Freedom from stroke at 12, 24, and 36 months was 100 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 91.4%, 100 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 85.5%, and 100 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 85.5%, respectively (p Log-rank = 0.024).&lt;b&gt;Conclusions:&lt;/b&gt; The present PSM study showed that, in patients with isolated unilateral ICA stenosis, CEA was associated with a reduced incidence of stroke compared to CAS.</p>","PeriodicalId":501107,"journal":{"name":"Polski przeglad chirurgiczny","volume":"96 6","pages":"63-69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Internal carotid artery stenosis - angioplasty with stenting or endarterectomy? A restrospective, single-center, observational study.\",\"authors\":\"Konrad Woronowicz, Zbigniew Krasiński, Sebastian Łukawiecki, Wojciech Gotlibowski, Sleiman Sebastian Aboul-Hassan\",\"doi\":\"10.5604/01.3001.0054.6996\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>&lt;b&gt;Introduction:&lt;/b&gt; Carotid artery stenosis is one of the main causes of ischemic stroke globally. Carotid revascularization (stenting or endarterectomy) has proved to be an effective form of treatment, superior to medical therapy alone in stroke prevention.&lt;b&gt;Aim:&lt;/b&gt; This study aimed to investigate the impact of carotid artery stenting (CAS) &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) on outcomes in patients treated for unilateral internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis.&lt;b&gt;Methods:&lt;/b&gt; Between January 2021 and December 2021, 131 patients with stenosed unilateral ICA undergoing primary isolated ICA intervention were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups, those who underwent CEA (n = 87) and those who underwent CAS (n = 44). Propensity score matching (PSM) selected 35 pairs and both groups were comparable for all baseline characteristics and well balanced.&lt;b&gt;Results:&lt;/b&gt; In the unmatched cohort, CEA and CAS had comparable long-term outcomes in terms of mortality. Survival at 12, 24, and 36 months was 95.4 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 95.5%, 92.0 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 95.5%, and 92.0 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 95.5%, respectively (p Log-rank = 0.47). However, CEA was associated with a reduced incidence of stroke at follow-up. Freedom from stroke at 12, 24, and 36 months was 98.9 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 90.9%, 97.6 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 86.2%, and 97.6 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 86.2%, respectively (p Log-rank = 0.011). In the matched cohort, CEA and CAS had comparable long- -term outcomes in terms of mortality. Survival at 12, 24, and 36 months was 94.3 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 94.3%, 91.4 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 94.3%, and 91.4 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 94.3%, respectively (p Log-rank = 0.65). However, CEA was associated with a reduced incidence of stroke at follow-up. Freedom from stroke at 12, 24, and 36 months was 100 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 91.4%, 100 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 85.5%, and 100 &lt;i&gt;vs&lt;/i&gt; 85.5%, respectively (p Log-rank = 0.024).&lt;b&gt;Conclusions:&lt;/b&gt; The present PSM study showed that, in patients with isolated unilateral ICA stenosis, CEA was associated with a reduced incidence of stroke compared to CAS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501107,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Polski przeglad chirurgiczny\",\"volume\":\"96 6\",\"pages\":\"63-69\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Polski przeglad chirurgiczny\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0054.6996\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polski przeglad chirurgiczny","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0054.6996","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

& lt; b>介绍:& lt; / b>颈动脉狭窄是全球缺血性脑卒中的主要病因之一。颈动脉血管重建术(支架植入或动脉内膜切除术)已被证明是一种有效的治疗形式,在预防中风方面优于单纯的药物治疗。本研究旨在探讨颈动脉支架植入术(CAS)的影响<;i>;颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)对单侧颈内动脉(ICA)狭窄患者预后的影响。在2021年1月至2021年12月期间,131例单侧ICA狭窄患者接受了初级孤立ICA干预。患者分为两组,CEA组(n = 87)和CAS组(n = 44)。倾向得分匹配(PSM)选择了35对,两组在所有基线特征上都具有可比性,并且平衡良好。在不匹配的队列中,CEA和CAS在死亡率方面具有可比的长期结果。12个月、24个月和36个月的生存率分别为95.4 /i>;95.5%, 92.0 <i>vs</i>;95.5%, 92.0 <i>vs</i>;95.5% (p Log-rank = 0.47)。然而,CEA与随访时卒中发生率降低有关。12个月、24个月和36个月的中风自由率为98.9 <i>vs</i>;90.9%, 97.6 <i>vs</i>;86.2%, 97.6 <i>vs</i>;分别为86.2% (p Log-rank = 0.011)。在匹配的队列中,CEA和CAS在死亡率方面具有可比的长期结果。12个月、24个月和36个月的生存率分别为94.3和/i>;94.3%, 91.4 <i>vs</i>;94.3%,和91.4 <i>vs</i>;94.3% (p Log-rank = 0.65)。然而,CEA与随访时卒中发生率降低有关。12个月、24个月和36个月无中风者分别为100 <;i>;91.4%, 100 <i>vs</i>;85.5%, 100 <i>vs</i>;分别为85.5% (p Log-rank = 0.024)。<b>;目前的PSM研究表明,在孤立的单侧ICA狭窄患者中,与CAS相比,CEA与卒中发生率降低相关。
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
Internal carotid artery stenosis - angioplasty with stenting or endarterectomy? A restrospective, single-center, observational study.

<b>Introduction:</b> Carotid artery stenosis is one of the main causes of ischemic stroke globally. Carotid revascularization (stenting or endarterectomy) has proved to be an effective form of treatment, superior to medical therapy alone in stroke prevention.<b>Aim:</b> This study aimed to investigate the impact of carotid artery stenting (CAS) <i>vs</i> carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) on outcomes in patients treated for unilateral internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis.<b>Methods:</b> Between January 2021 and December 2021, 131 patients with stenosed unilateral ICA undergoing primary isolated ICA intervention were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups, those who underwent CEA (n = 87) and those who underwent CAS (n = 44). Propensity score matching (PSM) selected 35 pairs and both groups were comparable for all baseline characteristics and well balanced.<b>Results:</b> In the unmatched cohort, CEA and CAS had comparable long-term outcomes in terms of mortality. Survival at 12, 24, and 36 months was 95.4 <i>vs</i> 95.5%, 92.0 <i>vs</i> 95.5%, and 92.0 <i>vs</i> 95.5%, respectively (p Log-rank = 0.47). However, CEA was associated with a reduced incidence of stroke at follow-up. Freedom from stroke at 12, 24, and 36 months was 98.9 <i>vs</i> 90.9%, 97.6 <i>vs</i> 86.2%, and 97.6 <i>vs</i> 86.2%, respectively (p Log-rank = 0.011). In the matched cohort, CEA and CAS had comparable long- -term outcomes in terms of mortality. Survival at 12, 24, and 36 months was 94.3 <i>vs</i> 94.3%, 91.4 <i>vs</i> 94.3%, and 91.4 <i>vs</i> 94.3%, respectively (p Log-rank = 0.65). However, CEA was associated with a reduced incidence of stroke at follow-up. Freedom from stroke at 12, 24, and 36 months was 100 <i>vs</i> 91.4%, 100 <i>vs</i> 85.5%, and 100 <i>vs</i> 85.5%, respectively (p Log-rank = 0.024).<b>Conclusions:</b> The present PSM study showed that, in patients with isolated unilateral ICA stenosis, CEA was associated with a reduced incidence of stroke 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
Treatment of anal fissures using the new TRPM8 receptor therapy - own experience. Static reanimation of the paralyzed face using non-absorbable polypropylene mesh. Mesenteric cysts. Delayed diagnosis, disease and secondary prevention, especially in young patients with colorectal cancer. Perioperative Elective Management in Patients Treated with Direct Oral Anticoagulants - Practical Guide.
×
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