ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) in the treatment of patients with carotid artery stenosis, and to provide a more abundant evidence-based medicine for the treatment of CEA and CAS in patients with carotid artery stenosis. MethodsForty patients with carotid artery stenosis were randomly divided into CEA group and CAS group based on the operative indication. Patients in CEA group were given carotid endarterectomy treatment and those in CAS group were given carotid artery stenting treatment. Then clinical efficacy of the two groups were observed and compared. ResultsIn terms of the occurring rate of perioperative complications, cardiovascular events in 3 months after operation, and some major end events such as stroke, death and so on, the comparative difference between the two groups was of no statistical significance (P > 0.05). Through the followed-up visits of 12 months, the comparative difference between the two groups was also of no statistical significance (P > 0.05) in terms of the occurring rate of carotid artery restenosis and disabling or fatal stroke. ConclusionsFor patients with severe extracranial carotid stenosis under indication of operation treatment, carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting are of equivalent clinical efficacy, and both of them are of high security, although further study with large-amount and evidence-based medical data in long term from multiple centers is still in need.
Objective To update available evidence on safety and efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) in treatment of carotid artery stenosis by a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods A comprehensive search was performed of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of science, WanFang, and CNKI databases (from January 1990 to July 2015), to collect articles and past systematic reviews, and then abstraced lists of recent scientific conferences which were related with safety and efficacy of CEA versus CAS in treatment of carotid artery stenosis. At last, Meta analysis was performed by RevMan 5.1 software. Results Fifteen RCTs enrolling 9 828 patients were included in the Meta-analysis. Compared with CAS, CEA was associated with a significantly lower incidences of any stroke or death within 30 days after surgery (OR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.51-0.77, P＜0.05) and any stroke or death during follow-up, or ipsilateral stroke after 30 days of operation (OR=0.61, 95% CI: 0.48-0.76, P＜0.05）, but associated with a significantly greater incidences of myocardial infarction (OR=1.81, 95% CI: 1.14-2.87, P=0.01) and cranial neuropathy (OR=18.28, 95% CI: 7.99-41.82, P＜0.05) within 30 days after surgery. Conclusion In comparison with CAS, CEA is associated with a lower incidences of stroke or death and a greater incidence of myocardial infarction and cranial neuropathy within 30 days after surgery, and was associated with a significantly lower incidence of any stroke or death during follow-up, or ipsilateral stroke after 30 days of operation. So the results of Meta-analysis support continued use of CEA as the standard method in treatment of carotid artery stenosis.
ObjectiveTo observe the effects of carotid artery stenting (CAS) on ophthalmic artery blood flow in patients with ischemic ophthalmopathy (IOP).MethodsA prospective case-control study. Sixty IOP patients (60 eyes) who met inclusive criteria for CAS were enrolled in this study. There was 50% stenosis of internal carotid artery on one side at least confirmed by color doppler flow imaging (CDFI). Among 60 eyes, there were 3 eyes with central retinal artery occlusion, 15 eyes with retinal vein occlusion, 37 eyes with ischemic optic neuropathy, 5 eyes with ocular ischemia syndrome. The patients were randomly divided into CAS group (32 eyes of 32 patients) and medicine therapy group (28 eyes of 28 patients). The difference of age (t=1.804) and sex (χ2=1.975) between two groups was not significant (P＞0.05). The examinations of fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA), CDFI and digital substraction angiography (DSA) were performed before, 1 week and 6 months after treatment. The following parameters were recorded: arm-retinal circulation time (A-Rct), peak systolic velocity (PSV), end-diastolic velocity (EDV), and resistance index (RI) in the ophthalmic artery (OA) and central retinal artery (CRA), and the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA).ResultsThere was no significant differences in A-Rct (t=1.354) and BCVA (t=0.376) between the two groups before treatment (P＞0.05). Also, there was no significant differences in PSV (t=−0.294, −2.446), EDV (t=0.141, −0.305), and RI (t=−0.222, −0.694) of OA and CRA between the two groups before treatment before treatment (P＞0.05). Compared with the medicine therapy group, the lower A-Rct was found in the CAS group at different time points after the treatment. The difference was significant on 1 week after treatment (t=−3.205, P＜0.05), but not on 6 months after treatment (t=1.345, P＞0.05). The BCVA of eyes in the two groups were increasing with the extending of time of therapy. Compared with the medicine therapy group, the better BCVA was found in the CAS group at different time points after the treatment (t=0.800, 1.527; P＜0.05). Compared with the medicine therapy group, the higher PSV, EDV and lower RI of OA and CRA were found in the CAS group at different time points after the treatment. (P＜0.05).ConclusionCompared with conventional medicine therapy, CAS shows earlier effects in improving ocular hemodynamics for IOP patients with carotid artery stenosis, which benefits visual function improvement of the patients.