Randomized clinical trial comparing neurological outcomes after carotid endarterectomy or stenting

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61989592%3A15110%2F15%3A33155987" target="_blank" >RIV/61989592:15110/15:33155987 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/61989592:15120/15:33155987

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9677" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9677</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9677" target="_blank" >10.1002/bjs.9677</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Randomized clinical trial comparing neurological outcomes after carotid endarterectomy or stenting

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Consecutive patients with internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis exceeding 70 per cent were screened for inclusion in this prospective study. Patients with indications for intervention, and eligible for both methods, were allocated randomly to CEA or CAS. Neurological examination, cognitive function tests and MRI of the brain were undertaken before and 24 h after intervention. Of 150 randomized patients, 73 (47 men; mean age 64.9(7.1) years) underwent CEA and 77 (58 men; 66.4(7.5) years) had CAS. New infarctions on MRI were found more frequently after CAS (49 versus 25 per cent; P = 0.002). Lesion volume was also significantly greater after CAS (P = 0.010). Multiple logistic regression analyses identified intervention in the right ICA as the only independent predictor of brain infarction (odds ratio 2.10, 95 per cent c.i. 1.03 to 4.25; P = 0.040). Stroke or transient ischaemic attack occurred in one patient after CEA and in two after CAS. No significant differences were found in cognit

Název v anglickém jazyce

Randomized clinical trial comparing neurological outcomes after carotid endarterectomy or stenting

Popis výsledku anglicky

Consecutive patients with internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis exceeding 70 per cent were screened for inclusion in this prospective study. Patients with indications for intervention, and eligible for both methods, were allocated randomly to CEA or CAS. Neurological examination, cognitive function tests and MRI of the brain were undertaken before and 24 h after intervention. Of 150 randomized patients, 73 (47 men; mean age 64.9(7.1) years) underwent CEA and 77 (58 men; 66.4(7.5) years) had CAS. New infarctions on MRI were found more frequently after CAS (49 versus 25 per cent; P = 0.002). Lesion volume was also significantly greater after CAS (P = 0.010). Multiple logistic regression analyses identified intervention in the right ICA as the only independent predictor of brain infarction (odds ratio 2.10, 95 per cent c.i. 1.03 to 4.25; P = 0.040). Stroke or transient ischaemic attack occurred in one patient after CEA and in two after CAS. No significant differences were found in cognit

Druh

J_x - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

CEP obor

FP - Ostatní lékařské obory

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach

Rok uplatnění

2015

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

British Journal of Surgery

ISSN

1365-2168

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

102

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

3

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

8

Strana od-do

194-201

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—