Journal of vascular surgery
-
Review Meta Analysis
Clinical results of carotid artery stenting compared with carotid endarterectomy.
Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treating carotid artery stenosis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical trials to date comparing these two procedures to determine their relative safety and efficacy. ⋯ Meta-analysis of trials to date shows CAS is associated with higher 30-day risk of stroke/death compared with CEA. Thus, for the patient at average surgical risk, the role of CAS is unproven, especially for symptomatic patients. And for the patient at high surgical risk, the role of any intervention is uncertain in the setting of competing comorbidities. The results of ongoing clinical trials in this area will likely provide additional evidence to support treatment choices for carotid artery stenosis.
-
Comparative Study Controlled Clinical Trial
Equivalent secondary patency rates of upper extremity Vectra Vascular Access Grafts and transposed brachial-basilic fistulas with aggressive access surveillance and endovascular treatment.
The 2006 update of the DOQI guidelines has stated that in patients with end-stage renal disease, autogenous radial-cephalic, or brachial-cephalic fistulas are the preferred access modalities, followed by transposed brachial-basilic (TBB) fistulas and prosthetic arteriovenous (AV) grafts. AV grafts are in general least preferred; however, there is very limited data comparing directly the last two modalities. The aim of the present study is to compare outcomes of the TBB fistula and the Vectra Vascular Access Graft. ⋯ Aggressive graft surveillance and endovascular treatment methods can yield equivalent long-term secondary patency rates between Vectra graft and TBB fistulas. The advantage of earlier use of Vectra graft must be balanced against the need for more frequent secondary interventions and the risk of graft infection.
-
Multicenter Study Comparative Study Controlled Clinical Trial
International controlled clinical trial of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair with the Zenith TX2 endovascular graft: 1-year results.
This trial evaluated the safety and effectiveness of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with a contemporary endograft system compared with open surgical repair (open) of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms and large ulcers. ⋯ Thoracic endovascular aortic repair with the TX2 is a safer and effective alternative to open surgical repair for the treatment of anatomically suitable descending thoracic aortic aneurysms and ulcers at 1 year of follow-up. Device performance issues are infrequent, but careful planning and regular follow-up with imaging remain a necessity.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
The Glasgow Aneurysm Score as a tool to predict 30-day and 2-year mortality in the patients from the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management trial.
Randomized trials have shown that endovascular repair (EVAR) of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has a lower perioperative mortality than conventional open repair (OR). However, this initial survival advantage disappears after 1 year. To make EVAR cost-effective, patient selection should be improved. The Glasgow Aneurysm Score (GAS) estimates preoperative risk profiles that predict perioperative outcomes after OR. It was recently shown to predict perioperative and long-term mortality after EVAR as well. Here, we applied the GAS to patients from the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (DREAM) trial and compared the applicability of the GAS between open repair and EVAR. ⋯ This is the first evaluation of the GAS in a randomized trial comparing AAA patients treated with OR and EVAR. The GAS can be used for prediction of 30-day and 2-year mortality in both OR and EVAR, but in patients that are suitable for both procedures, it is a better predictor for EVAR than for OR patients. In this study, the GAS was most valuable in identifying low-risk patients but not very useful for the identification of the small number of high-risk patients.
-
Meta Analysis Comparative Study
Safety of endovascular treatment of carotid artery stenosis compared with surgical treatment: a meta-analysis.
Since publication of previous meta-analyses comparing endovascular and surgical treatment of patients with carotid artery stenosis, two further large-scale trials have been conducted, almost doubling the number of patients available for analysis. Therefore, it is justified to update these meta-analyses. ⋯ The expressiveness of this meta-analysis is limited by the heterogeneity of some tests. The main result is that surgical treatment still remains the gold standard for treatment of patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, who do not have an increased surgical risk. Carotid artery stenting is neither safer than nor as safe as carotid endarterectomy in large clinical trials when short-term stroke and death rates are taken into account. Further recruitment into ongoing randomized trials is strongly recommended.