Файловый архив студентов. Файловый архив студентов.
1327 вузов, 5482 предметов.
/ Регистрация
FAQ Обратная связь Вопросы и предложения
Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Ростовский Государственный Медицинский Университет
Предмет:
Медицина общая
Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_2806_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
02.09.2026
Размер:
20 Мб
Скачать
☆
256
Table 14.2 (continued)
Original studies
Author
Procedure Follow-up time
Dardik [45] CEA 3months 0% 8% 2001
Key ndings:
Middleton [46] CEA NR 1.7% NR 2001
Key ndings:
Lloyd [47] CEA 6months 0% NR 2004
Key ndings:
CaRESS [48] CAS 30days, 1year 0.0% CAS vs. 2005 CEA
Key ndings:
Abelha [49] CEA 6months 0% 4.8% 2008
Key ndings:
Stolker [50] CAS 2weeks, 1month, 6months, 12months NR NR 2010 CEA SAPPHIRE
Key ndings:
Attigah [51] CEA Baseline, 2days 0% 0% 2011
Key ndings:
Perceived improved overall health after CEA SF-36 scores in all domains similar at 3months compared to baseline Postoperative physical health similar to chronically ill general population Postoperative mental health similar to healthy general population
At 1year, majority of patients consider overall health to be similar to pre-op SF-36 scores higher in CEA cohort than population norms for Australian
>55years old who had experienced a stroke, but not compared to general healthy population
CEA did not cause deterioration of QOL at 6months Signicantly less anxiety after the operation based on HAD scale Signicant improvement in QOL according to EQ-5D scale
No signicant differences between CEA and CAS groups in change of QOL and MILQ score
CAS experienced greater decline in QOL after intervention, but it was not statistically signicant
Improved subjective perception of QOL Higher levels of dependency in activities of daily living Worse SF-36 scores compared to general population
Physical health domains decline at 2weeks after CEA, and return to baseline by 1month
At 2weeks, CAS patients had better scores in SF-36 physical scale compared to CEA
No signicant difference in SF-36 scores at 1month, 6months, 12months Mental health scores similar at all time intervals EQ-5D utility score similar At 2weeks CAS patients reported less difculty eating, swallowing, difculty
driving and less neck pain. These differences resolved by the 1month follow-up assessment
Procedural satisfaction better in those who already have worse HADS scores
Peri­operative mortality
0.4% CEA
L. L. Shan et al.
Peri­operative strokeYear
2.1% CAS vs.
3.6% CEA
14 Quality ofLife andPatient Reported Outcome Measures Following Carotid Artery Intervention
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
Table 14.2 (continued)
Original studies
Author
Procedure Follow-up time
Cohen [52] CAS 2weeks, 1month, 1year CAS 5.2% vs. 2011 CEA CREST
Key ndings:
Kazmierski [33]
2012
Hsu [53] CAS Baseline, 1month, 6months 0% 0% 2014
Kazmierski [54]
2014
Yan [55] CAS Baseline, 1month, 3months, 6months, 2014
Carta [56] CEA 6–7months NR NR 2015
Hye [57] CEA Baseline, 2weeks, 1month, 12months NR NR 2015
CEA 1year NR NR
Key ndings:
Key ndings:
CEA Baseline, 1year NR NR
Key ndings:
Key ndings:
Key ndings:
Key ndings:
After CEA, physical and functional health domains of SF-36 worse at 2weeks, but return to baseline or better by 12months
After CEA, mental health domains of SF-36 continuously improve, including at 2weeks
Better SF-36 scores for CAS at 2weeks compared to CEA (SF-36, disease specic scales, pain scale), but not after 1month, and are the same at 1year
LS scores for pain and function similar for both CEA and CAS at 1year Postoperative stroke has negative impact on QOL, but not myocardial infarct or
cranial nerve injury
Mean QOL after surgery increased 1year after surgery Before surgery: “poor” (more than half). After surgery “good” (86%).
All SF-36 domains similar to baseline at 1month after CAS At 6months, physical and general health domains better, less pain, emotional and
social function better Asymptomatic patients maintain preoperative QOL
Majority of patients have signicant functional improvement after CEA Patient’s life quality improved in 67% patients
12months
WHOQOL-BREF improved at 1month, 3months, 6months, 12months after CAS compared to baseline
HAM-D and HAM-A were better after CAS compared to medical therapy at all postoperative time points
SF-12 score similar between CEA and medical treatment groups Positive trend towards better QOL outcomes after CEA, but 6months not enough
to demonstrate this No signicant difference between preoperative and postoperative scores
No difference in QOL between patients with and without cranial injury after CEA LS showed cranial nerve injury had some negative impact on functional status
Peri­operative mortality
CEA 4.5%
0% 0%
257
Peri­operative strokeYear
4.1% CAS vs.
2.3% CEA
(continued)
258
Table 14.2 (continued)
Original studies
Author
Procedure Follow-up time
Reviews
Al-Damluji [42]
2013 Shan [28] Key 2015 Minimal differences between CEA and CAS Chabowski [43] Key 2017 1year QOL similar to chronically ill general population
ADL activities of daily living, BP bodily pain, CaRESS carotid revascularization using endarterectomy or stenting sys­tems trial, CAS carotid artery stenting, CEA carotid endarterectomy, CREST carotid revascularization endarterectomy versus stenting trial, EQ-5D European quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D, GHP general health perception, QOL qual­ity of life, ICU intensive care unit, MH mental health, MILQ multidimensional index of life quality, NA not applicable, NR not recorded, NS not signicant, PF physical function, Post-op post-operative, Pre-op pre-operative, RE role emo­tional/mental, RP role physical, SAPPHIRE stenting and angioplasty with protection in patients at high risk for endar­terectomy, SF social functioning, SF-36 medical outcomes survey short form 36 questions, VAS visual analogue scale, VT energy/vitality
Key ndings:
ndings:
ndings:
CAS patients have better QOL at 2weeks postop compared to CEA patients, but no difference by 1year
CEA and CAS maintain preoperative QOL for at least 1year
Early postoperative QOL after CEA declines, but returns to baseline at 1year
Peri­operative mortality
L. L. Shan et al.
Peri­operative strokeYear
Quality ofLife After Carotid Endarterectomy (18 Studies)
[28, 31–33, 42–52, 54, 56, 57]
The vast majority of QOL evidence pertains to CEA.Numerous studies demonstrate that patients maintain pre-operative QOL after CEA.The pat­tern of recovery varies across different domains in different studies. There is a temporary decline in QOL at 2weeks to 1month especially in phys­ical health and functional domains. This is only transient and is consistent with the expected ini­tial postoperative decline after open surgery. However, by 6months to 1year, all domains are at least as good as pre-operatively.
The preservation of mental health is important after carotid intervention, particularly in prophy­lactic procedures. Patients with carotid stenosis already have a baseline level of anxiety and poor perception of health related to overall poor car­diovascular health [47]. Studies included in this chapter show that unlike the physical health domains, mental health domains did not demon­strate the same pattern of initial decline after sur­gery. Instead, QOL appears to be maintained throughout.
A major limitation of these studies should be highlighted here. There remains only one study with QOL data beyond 12 months [31]. This study is one of the earliest studies on QOL after CEA and is therefore limited because modern operative techniques and validated QOL instru­ments haven’t been used. While it is difcult to draw strong conclusions, these authors demon­strated that after 8–11 years’ follow-up, QOL remained similar between the CEA and non­operative groups with relatively similar response rates. This suggests a positive long-term QOL outcome after CEA.
Quality ofLife After Carotid Stenting (Seven Studies) [28, 42, 48, 50, 52,
53, 55]
Overall, QOL does not appear to deteriorate after CAS. Earlier studies show that although some health domains were temporarily worse, QOL at 1year is similar to baseline. Contemporary stud­ies suggest that CAS patients have similar QOL by 1 month and may actually experience an improvement in their physical and general health
14 Quality ofLife andPatient Reported Outcome Measures Following Carotid Artery Intervention
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
259
domains with better emotional and social func­tion by 6months. To date there is no data on QOL after CAS beyond 1year.
Quality ofLife After Endarterectomy Compared toStenting (Five Studies)
[28, 42, 48, 50, 52]
CAS may be superior to CEA in the early post­procedure period in physical health domains from as early as 2weeks. However, these differ­ences were not present at 1year. A similar pattern is observed in functional performance with no difference in walking, eating and driving ability by 1year. Mental health domains do not appear to be impacted by the type of procedure. Based on these results where QOL is similar, the choice between CEA and CAS is likely to be inuenced by other factors.
Quality ofLife Compared toReference Populations (Seven Studies) [31, 32, 45, 46, 49, 55, 56]
Comparisons have been made between carotid intervention and medical treatment groups or the general population. It is clear that current data remains insufcient to be denitive. After CEA, there does not appear to a clear difference in QOL between intervention and medical treat­ment groups at follow-up of up to 1year, espe­cially in physical health domains. Treatment satisfaction remains high, but anxiety over future strokes or TIA may remain. These anxieties appear to be lesser after CAS at short follow-up. CEA patients have worse physical health com­pared to the general population, but mental health may be similar. The lack of benet compared with medical treatment groups and the general population is largely due to the short term follow­ up. Stroke prevention in carotid intervention is greater the longer the follow-up. Therefore, it is likely that there has not been enough time elapsed to identify a QOL benet of intervention.
Cognitive Function
There has been a greater interest recently in cog­nitive outcomes after carotid intervention. A number of reviews and meta-analyses have been published on this subject, but denitive conclu­sions have not been reached due to signicant heterogeneity. CEA may be associated with both preservation and improvement of cognitive function depending on the domain tested [58–
61]. This includes memory, attention, mini men-
tal state exams, and executive function. CAS may be associated with improved global cognition, memory, attention and psychomotor speed, although executive function and language may not change [62]. The difference between CEA and CAS remains unclear [61].
Utility ofQuality ofLife Tools
Importance ofQuality ofLife Assessment andPROMS
A recent review by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care has identi­ed some key aspects of PROMS and QOL [25]. QOL and PROMS are used because patients are the best judges of the effect on their QOL and function. This allows a patient centered model of care and helps improve the quality and safety of various treatments. The effectiveness of different treatments can therefore be more accurately determined.
With carotid revascularisation, the inference previously has been that intervention prevents QOL deterioration due to stroke prevention. It is only recently that QOL outcomes have been for­mally reviewed [28, 42, 43], showing the positive outcome of carotid revascularisation on QOL and PROMS. There should be distinction between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients in order to use QOL in clinical practice.
QOL should not necessarily be expected to improve after revascularisation, particularly for previously asymptomatic patients who have pro-
260
L. L. Shan et al.
phylactic procedures. The outcome is positive if QOL is maintained after intervention because the intervention served to prevent a stroke. This is especially important in prophylactic procedures, especially if performed on asymptomatic patients who would otherwise not have had a detriment to their QOL as a result of the disease process. Similarly, because they were asymptomatic, they were unlikely to gain a great benet from inter­vention other than in mental health domains.
In symptomatic patients who have had a stroke, there may be a signicant deterioration in QOL before intervention. Subsequent revascu­larisation and resolution of symptoms in con­junction with rehabilitation may then improve QOL. The recovery in QOL will then likely be longer than in asymptomatic patients. There will also likely be positive effects on mobility indices, Rankin score, and mini mental state, but these are yet to be elucidated in studies. Existing QOL studies do not make a distinction between tran­sient ischemic attacks and stroke as the indication for carotid revascularisation. By denition, patients with transient ischemic attacks don’t have residual physical neurological decits and therefore physical domains of QOL are much less impacted than a patient with stroke. Mobility and disability are also likely to be different. Fear of subsequent stroke is more likely to be a key fea­ture in transient ischemic attacks, and this affects mental health domains much more.
With implementation of these guidelines, important and clinically relevant information would be obtained. This information provides improved patient-focused outcomes data which facilitates improved quality of care to patients and more accurate analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention. In addition, perhaps the greatest ben­et will be its use in policy making, cost­effectiveness analysis, and ultimately resource allocation. For example, CEA has been shown to be cost effective even in asymptomatic patients less than 75years of age if a threshold of £20,000 per quality of life year and background stroke rate of less than 1% per year is used [63]. The cost effec­tiveness of CAS compared to CEA is not so clear [64–66]. QOL and cognitive function have not yet been included in such cost- effectiveness analyses.
Need forFurther Research
There are several key issues identied from pre­vious QOL studies that should be addressed in future studies [28].
Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, there needs to be investigation into the long-term QOL outcomes after carotid intervention. The benet of stroke prevention is likely to be greater the longer the follow-up. This is especially important in asymptomatic carotid intervention. Current QOL outcomes are largely limited to 1year, but these outcomes would be more even more rele­vant if follow-up extended up to 5years.
Secondly, there is a clear lack of evidence on the use of currently available QOL and PROM instruments after carotid revascularisation [67]. These disease-specic QOL instruments are use­ful measures of change in QOL specic to a treat­ment and disease process [27]. However, there are signicant difculties with developing such QOL instruments because there would need to be separation of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, transient ischemic attack and stroke patients, as well as degree of stenosis. It may be better to apply the currently available neurologi­cal QOL instruments and mobility and disability indices in carotid intervention.
Thirdly, there needs to be a standardised set of results that are reported to facilitate objective assessment with meta-analyses. Ideally a stan­dardised common instrument should be used by all studies. QOL data should be expressed as mean ±standard deviation and results given at pre-determined follow-up time points including baseline and nal follow-up, rather than a range or median of variable follow-up time points.
Fourthly, there was a relatively low response rate in previously conducted studies. High response rates are compulsory to minimise bias.
Fifthly, the distinction between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients for both CEA and CAS is unclear. These are markedly different subgroups of patients in regard to baseline QOL, expected QOL gains, and importantly the patient’s own expectations after intervention.
Finally, the effect of morbidity, frailty and dis­ability as a variable for QOL outcomes is under-
14 Quality ofLife andPatient Reported Outcome Measures Following Carotid Artery Intervention
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
appreciated. The burden of comorbidities is a risk factor for frailty, which in turn predisposes to dis­ability [68]. This is because frailty causes decreased reserve and less ability to deal with adverse outcomes [68]. Comorbidities, frailty and disability are therefore separate entities. They are important because they are increasingly prevalent with an ageing population, who are
Older
age
Severe
stroke
increasingly offered intervention. There are also specic stent technologies, stent brands, and
Comorbidities
adjuncts to improve procedural success of CAS in specic anatomical set ups. However, the impact of these on QOL outcomes have not been
Socioeconomics
investigated.
With implementation of these guidelines, important and clinically relevant information would be obtained. The logistical challenges
Inadequate
treatment
faced will be in the design of an instrument which is simple and thorough enough for patients to participate in, as well as the data collection which
Fig. 14.1 Predictors of poor QOL
needs to be consistent and accurate without sig­nicant loss to follow-up. The importance of this aspect of treatment is often underestimated as the traditional teaching heavily emphasises the importance of technical outcomes alone. This paradigm now needs to incorporate QOL out­comes as a complement to technical outcomes as a routine part of clinical practice.
this text. In order assess the relevance of QOL outcomes, it is more important to assess the reported morbidity and mortality in the studies that report QOL.Any patients who do not partici­pate in QOL assessment or are lost to follow-up are more likely to have a worse QOL due to a greater burden of comorbidities and physical impairments [49, 50]. The difculty in interpreting QOL assessments is compounded by
Eect ofOther Outcomes onQuality ofLife andProms
the fact that post-operative stroke and death ren­ders it unlikely that such patients will complete
QOL questionnaires. According to previous Predictors of QOL outcomes have been studied after CEA (Fig. 14.1) [43, 69]. Worse QOL is likely after severe stroke, older age, comorbidi­ties, lack of proper treatment and rehabilitation, and poor socioeconomic factors [43]. Mental health domains of QOL after signicantly affected by contralateral stenosis, dizziness improvement, and hoarseness [69]. This shows that although uncommon, vagus nerve injury should be avoided during CEA by meticulous dissection and avoidance of retractor injury.
The mortality, survival, morbidity and compli­cations of CEA and CAS are well described in the literature. These are outside of the scope of
guidelines, a response rate of >85% (loss to fol­low-up <15%) is considered ideal [70]. This rate is achieved in only eight studies in the literature [33, 45–47, 51, 52, 56, 57]. It is therefore possi­ble that QOL outcomes are overestimated, at least in the shorter term. At the same time, the lack of adequate long- term follow-up may also underestimate the QOL benet because the ben­et of CEA for stroke prevention is more appar­ent the longer the follow-up duration. It is therefore important to assess the both the shorter and longer-term response rates to identify risk of bias in conjunction with the technical outcomes to put the QOL outcomes into perspective.
261
262
L. L. Shan et al.
Statistical techniques to deal with missing data have been developed to resolve issues such as mentioned above. This includes multiple imputa­tion which is a statistical method of dealing with missing data by combining the results of several different possible data sets [71]. There are particu­lar biases that occur as a result of the missing data, depending on the reason why the data is missing. Multiple imputation may be helpful in both epide­miological studies and randomised controlled tri­als, but there are potential pitfalls that warrant input from a statistician [71, 72]. Future studies may benet from incorporation of this technique.
Perioperative mortality and stroke was anal­ysed in studies reporting QOL data. The peri­operative mortality and stroke rate are CEA was
0.0–4.5% and 0–8.0%, respectively [32, 44–49,
51, 52], while after CAS it was 0.0–5.2% and
0–5.8%, respectively [48, 52, 53, 55]. Peri­operative myocardial infarction was 0.8–6.6% in CEA and 0.0–1.9% in CAS [16, 23, 48, 50, 52]. The 1-year stroke rates for CEA and CAS were
7.7–9.8% and 5.5–5.8%, respectively [23, 48,
50]. These results are reective of the studies
included which were not designed to evaluate stroke and mortality rates, with few randomised controlled trials and high quality studies in this regard. While the results don’t necessarily reect that of currently accepted standards, they do pro­vide an indication of how the QOL results from these studies can be interpreted. The mortality and stroke rates are in general higher, meaning QOL outcomes may be worse than if QOL data were derived from higher quality studies.
Few studies reported comprehensive morbid­ity data. Patients in included studies experienced fewer stroke symptoms after CEA compared to CAS [33]. Symptoms including headache, leg pain were similar in CEA and CAS after 1year [52], although there may be more neck pain with CEA [50]. Cranial nerve palsies occurred in 0.3% and 4.7% of CAS and CEA patients respectively [52]. However, cranial nerve injury does not appear to cause a detriment to overall QOL [57]. The effect of perioperative morbidity and com­plications on QOL outcomes and PROMS remains unclear. Given the relatively low inci-
dence of complications in experienced centres, it may not be possible to demonstrate a statistically signicant impact. However, clinically it would be prudent to avoid complications and improve morbidity to avoid a negative impact on QOL.
Cognitive function is a relatively new area of interest in carotid intervention. The reason for cognitive impairment from carotid disease and intervention may relate to brain injury which occurs due to embolism, thrombosis or hyperper­fusion/hypoperfusion [73]. Atheroembolism in particular is associated with worse short and long term cognitive function [74, 75]. There is also a theory that the greater embolization rate during CAS may account for a worse cognitive outcome, but this is not yet conrmed [61]. Cognitive out­comes following carotid revascularisation are important because these affect how a patient per­ceives their QOL and also how they report their QOL.Furthermore, if a patient has severe cogni­tive impairment, it may signicantly limit their ability to accurately report on their own QOL. Further research is necessary to identify the impacts of cognitive function on PROMS in these patients.
Conclusion
Currently available studies show that CEA and CAS maintain pre-operative QOL for at least 1year (Fig. 14.2). Long-term data is lacking and there is insufcient evidence to differentiate CEA and CAS.QOL and PROMS are a critical aspect of outcomes assessment in modern surgical prac­tice. This is particularly pertinent to preventative procedures such as CEA and CAS. Signicant limitations of the currently available literature are identied with the view that these be used as a guideline for future research. This information provides improved patient-focused outcomes data which facilitates improved quality of care to patients and more accurate analysis of the effec­tiveness of an intervention. In addition, perhaps the greatest benet will be its use in policy mak­ing, cost-effectiveness analysis, and ultimately resource allocation.
14 Quality ofLife andPatient Reported Outcome Measures Following Carotid Artery Intervention
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
Conclusions
1. QOL and PROMS are critical in contemporary outcomes assessment after carotid artery
intervention.
2. CEA and CAS maintain pre-operative QOL for at least one year.
3. Long-term data is lacking and there is insufficient evidence to differentiate CEA and CAS.
4. Severe stroke, older age, comorbidities, lack of proper treatment and rehabilitation, and
poor socioeconomic factors are predictors of poor QOL after CEA.
5. Future studies are needed to improve methods of QOL assessment and evaluate factors
that affect QOL outcomes especially after CAS.
Fig. 14.2 Conclusions
263
References
1. Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, Benjamin EJ, Berry JD, Blaha MJ, etal. Heart disease and stroke statis­tics--2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014;129(3):e28–e292.
2. Sprigg N, Selby J, Fox L, Berge E, Whynes D, Bath PM.Very low quality of life after acute stroke: data from the Efcacy of Nitric Oxide in Stroke trial. Stroke. 2013;44(12):3458–62.
3. Luengo-Fernandez R, Gray AM, Bull L, Welch S, Cuthbertson F, Rothwell PM.Quality of life after TIA and stroke: ten-year results of the Oxford Vascular Study. Neurology. 2013;81(18):1588–95.
4. Zhu CZ, Norris JW.Role of carotid stenosis in isch­emic stroke. Stroke. 1990;21(8):1131–4.
5. Petty GW, Brown RD Jr, Whisnant JP, Sicks JD, O’Fallon WM, Wiebers DO. Ischemic stroke sub­types: a population-based study of incidence and risk factors. Stroke. 1999;30(12):2513–6.
6. WHO.Surveillance in brief: update of noncommuni­cable diseases and mental health surveillance activi­ties, vol. 5. Geneva: WHO; 2003. p.1–5.
7. Adar R, Cohen E, Kreitler S.Carotid endarterectomy for symptom-free stenosis: the patient’s point of view. Cardiovasc Surg. 1994;2(5):582–5.
8. Herrera FJ, Wong J, Chung F. A systematic review of postoperative recovery outcomes measurements after ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg. 2007;105(1): 63–9.
9. European Carotid Surgery Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: nal results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST). Lancet. 1998;351(9113):1379–87.
10. Barnett HJ, Taylor DW, Eliasziw M, Fox AJ, Ferguson GG, Haynes RB, etal. Benet of carotid endarterec­tomy in patients with symptomatic moderate or severe
stenosis. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(20):1415–25.
11. Fisher M, Martin A, Cosgrove M, Norris JW. The NASCET-ACAS plaque project. North American symptomatic carotid endarterectomy trial. Asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis study. Stroke. 1993;24(12 Suppl):I24–5; discussion I31–2.
12. Young B, Moore WS, Robertson JT, Toole JF, Ernst CB, Cohen SN, et al. An analysis of perioperative surgical mortality and morbidity in the asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis study. ACAS Investigators. Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study. Stroke. 1996;27(12):2216–24.
13. Halliday A, Manseld A, Marro J, Peto C, Peto R, Potter J, etal. Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients with­out recent neurological symptoms: randomised con­trolled trial. Lancet. 2004;363(9420):1491–502.
14. Halliday A, Harrison M, Hayter E, Kong X, Manseld A, Marro J, et al. 10-year stroke prevention after successful carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic stenosis (ACST-1): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9746):1074–84.
15. Bonati LH, Dobson J, Algra A, Branchereau A, Chatellier G, Fraedrich G, etal. Short-term outcome after stenting versus endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis: a preplanned meta-analysis of indi­vidual patient data. Lancet. 2010;376(9746):1062–73.
16. Brott TG, Hobson RW II, Howard G, Roubin GS, Clark WM, Brooks W, et al. Stenting versus endar­terectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(1):11–23.
17. Ederle J, Dobson J, Featherstone RL, Bonati LH, van der Worp HB, de Borst GJ, etal. Carotid artery stent­ing compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9719):985–97.
264
L. L. Shan et al.
18. Orrapin S, Rerkasem K. Carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6:CD001081.
19. Chambers BR, Donnan GA. Carotid endarterec­tomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;4:CD001923.
20. Hobson RW II, Weiss DG, Fields WS, Goldstone J, Moore WS, Towne JB, etal. Efcacy of carotid end­arterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(4):221–7.
21. Walker MD, etal. Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Executive Committee for the asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis study. JAMA. 1995;273(18):1421–8.
22. Grotta JC.Clinical practice. Carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(12):1143–50.
23. Yadav JS, Wholey MH, Kuntz RE, Fayad P, Katzen BT, Mishkel GJ, etal. Protected carotid-artery stent­ing versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(15):1493–501.
24. Naylor AR, Ricco JB, de Borst GJ, Debus S, de Haro J, Halliday A, etal. Editor’s choice- management of atherosclerotic carotid and vertebral artery disease: 2017 clinical practice guidelines of the European soci­ety for vascular surgery (ESVS). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;55(1):3–81.
25. Williams KSJ, Morris D, Grootemaat P, Thompson C. Patient-reported outcome measures: literature review. Sydney, NSW: Healthcare ACoSaQi; 2016.
26. Testa MA, Simonson DC.Assessment of quality-of­life outcomes. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(13):835–40.
27. Urbach DR. Measuring quality of life after surgery. Surg Innov. 2005;12(2):161–5.
28. Shan L, Shan J, Saxena A, Robinson D.Quality of life and functional status after carotid revascularisation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;49(6):634–45.
29. Timaran CH, McKinsey JF, Schneider PA, Littooy F. Reporting standards for carotid interventions from the Society for Vascular Surgery. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53(6):1679–95.
30. Nedeltchev K, Pattynama PM, Biaminoo G, Diehm N, Jaff MR, Hopkins LN, et al. Standardized de­nitions and clinical endpoints in carotid artery and supra-aortic trunk revascularization trials. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;76(3):333–44.
31. Sirkka A, Salenius JP, Portin R, Nummenmaa T. Quality of life and cognitive performance after carotid endarterectomy during long-term follow-up. Acta Neurol Scand. 1992;85(1):58–62.
32. Martin PJ, Fotopoulou M, Baker GA, Humphrey PR.Health-related quality of life after transient isch­emic attack and minor stroke: is medical or surgi­cal treatment inuential? J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 1998;7(1):70–5.
33. Kazmierski P, Kasielska A, Bogusiak K, Lysakowski M, Stelagowski M.Inuence of internal carotid end­arterectomy on patients’ life quality. Polski Przeglad Chirurgiczny. 2012;84(1):17–22.
34. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD.The MOS 36-item short­form health survey (SF-36). I.Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.
35. de Bruin AF, de Witte LP, Stevens F, Diederiks JP. Sickness impact prole: the state of the art of a generic functional status measure. Soc Sci Med. 1992;35(8):1003–14.
36. Lewis G, Wessely S.Comparison of the general health questionnaire and the hospital anxiety and depression scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1990;157:860–4.
37. Katz S, Downs TD, Cash HR, Grotz RC.Progress in development of the index of ADL.The Gerontologist. 1970;10(1):20–30.
38. EuroQol Group. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.
39. Avis NE, Smith KW, Hambleton RK, Feldman HA, Selwyn A, Jacobs A. Development of the multi­dimensional index of life quality. A quality of life measure for cardiovascular disease. Med Care. 1996;34(11):1102–20.
40. WHO.WHOQOL-BREF.Geneva: WHO; 1996. https://
www.who.int/mental_health/publications/whoqol/en/.
41. Ederle J, Bonati LH, Dobson J, Featherstone RL, Gaines PA, Beard JD, et al. Endovascular treatment with angioplasty or stenting versus endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis in the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS): long-term follow-up of a randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(10):898–907.
42. Al-Damluji MS, Nagpal S, Stilp E, Remetz M, Mena C. Carotid revascularization: a systematic review of the evidence. J Interv Cardiol. 2013;26(4):399–410.
43. Chabowski M, Grzebien A, Ziomek A, Dorobisz K, Lesniak M, Janczak D. Quality of life after carotid endarterectomy: a review of the literature. Acta Neurol Belg. 2017;117(4):829–35.
44. Vriens EM, Post MW, Jacobs HM, van Huffelen AC, Eikelboom BC.Changes in health-related quality of life after carotid endarterectomy. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1998;16(5):395–400.
45. Dardik A, Minor J, Watson C, Hands LJ. Improved quality of life among patients with symptomatic carotid artery disease undergoing carotid endarterec­tomy. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33(2):329–33.
46. Middleton S, Donnelly N, Harris J, Lusby R, Ward J. Audit of long-term mortality and morbidity out­comes for carotid endarterectomy. Aust Health Rev. 2002;25(4):81–91.
47. Lloyd AJ, Hayes PD, London NJ, Bell PR, Naylor AR.Does carotid endarterectomy lead to a decline in cognitive function or health related quality of life? J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2004;26(6):817–25.
48. CaRESS Steering Committee. Carotid Revascularization Using Endarterectomy or Stenting Systems (CaRESS) phase I clinical trial: 1-year results. J Vasc Surg. 2005;42(2):213–9.
49. Abelha FJ, Quevedo S, Barros H.Quality of life after carotid endarterectomy. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2008;8:33.
14 Quality ofLife andPatient Reported Outcome Measures Following Carotid Artery Intervention
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
265
50. Stolker JM, Mahoney EM, Saey DM, Pomposelli FB Jr, Yadav JS, Cohen DJ. Health-related quality of life following carotid stenting versus endarter­ectomy: results from the SAPPHIRE (Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at HIgh Risk for Endarterectomy) trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(5):515–23.
51. Attigah N, Kutter J, Demirel S, Hakimi M, Hinz U, Motsch J, et al. Assessment of patients’ satisfaction in carotid surgery under local anaesthesia by psycho­metrical testing--a prospective cohort study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;41(1):76–82.
52. Cohen DJ, Stolker JM, Wang K, Magnuson EA, Clark WM, Demaerschalk BM, etal. Health-related quality of life after carotid stenting versus carotid endarterec­tomy: results from CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(15):1557–65.
53. Hsu LC, Chang FC, Teng MM, Chern CM, Wong WJ.Impact of carotid stenting in dizzy patients with carotid stenosis. J Chin Med Assoc. 2014;77(8):403–8.
54. Kazmierski P, Stelagowski M, Kasielska-Trojan A, Bogusiak K, Glabinski A.Neurologic and functional long-term outcome after carotid endarterectomy. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014;23(4):686–93.
55. Yan Y, Yuan Y, Liang L, Chen T, Shen Y, Zhong C. Inuence of carotid artery stenting on cognition of elderly patients with severe stenosis of the internal carotid artery. Med Sci Monit. 2014;20:1461–8.
56. Carta MG, Lecca ME, Saba L, Sanlippo R, Pintus E, Cadoni M, etal. Patients with carotid atherosclerosis who underwent or did not undergo carotid endarterec­tomy: outcome on mood, cognition and quality of life. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15:277.
57. Hye RJ, Mackey A, Hill MD, Voeks JH, Cohen DJ, Wang K, et al. Incidence, outcomes, and effect on quality of life of cranial nerve injury in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61(5):1208–14.
58. Dempsey RJ, Jackson DC, Wilbrand SM, Mitchell CC, Berman SE, Johnson SC, etal. The preservation of cognition 1 year after carotid endarterectomy in patients with prior cognitive decline. Neurosurgery. 2018;82(3):322–8.
59. Wang Q, Zhou M, Zhou Y, Ji J, Raithel D, Qiao T.Effects of carotid endarterectomy on cerebral reper­fusion and cognitive function in patients with high grade carotid stenosis: a perfusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;50(1):5–12.
60. De Rango P, Caso V, Leys D, Paciaroni M, Lenti M, Cao P.The role of carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy in cognitive performance: a system­atic review. Stroke. 2008;39(11):3116–27.
61. Paraskevas KI, Lazaridis C, Andrews CM, Veith FJ, Giannoukas AD. Comparison of cognitive function after carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterec­tomy. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;47(3):221–31.
62. Antonopoulos CN, Kakisis JD, Sfyroeras GS, Moulakakis KG, Kallinis A, Giannakopoulos T, etal. The impact of carotid artery stenting on cognitive
function in patients with extracranial carotid artery stenosis. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015;29(3):457–69.
63. Thapar A, Garcia Mochon L, Epstein D, Shalhoub J, Davies AH. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic stenosis. Br J Surg. 2013;100(2):231–9.
64. Sternbergh WC III, Crenshaw GD, Bazan HA, Smith TA. Carotid endarterectomy is more cost­effective than carotid artery stenting. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55(6):1623–8.
65. Vilain KR, Magnuson EA, Li H, Clark WM, Begg RJ, Sam AD II, etal. Costs and cost-effectiveness of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy for patients at standard surgical risk: results from the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST). Stroke. 2012;43(9):2408–16.
66. Featherstone RL, Dobson J, Ederle J, Doig D, Bonati LH, Morris S, etal. Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): a randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20(20):1–94.
67. Essat M, Aber A, Phillips P, Poku E, Woods HB, Howard A, et al. Patient-reported outcome mea­sures in carotid artery revascularization: systematic review and psychometric analysis. Ann Vasc Surg. 2018;50:275–83.
68. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, etal. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(3):M146–56.
69. Jiang Q, Lin T, Qu L. Predictors of health-related quality of life for mental health status in patients after carotid endarterectomy. World Neurosurg. 2019;126:e379–e84.
70. Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23–9.
71. Sterne JA, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, etal. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: poten­tial and pitfalls. BMJ. 2009;338:b2393.
72. Jakobsen JC, Gluud C, Wetterslev J, Winkel P.When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials­a practical guide with owcharts. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):162.
73. Goldberg JB, Goodney PP, Kumbhani SR, Roth RM, Powell RJ, Likosky DS. Brain injury after carotid revascularization: outcomes, mechanisms, and opportunities for improvement. Ann Vasc Surg. 2011;25(2):270–86.
74. Zhou W, Baughman BD, Soman S, Wintermark M, Lazzeroni LC, Hitchner E, etal. Volume of subclini­cal embolic infarct correlates to long-term cognitive changes after carotid revascularization. J Vasc Surg. 2017;65(3):686–94.
75. Hitchner E, Baughman BD, Soman S, Long B, Rosen A, Zhou W.Microembolization is associated with tran­sient cognitive decline in patients undergoing carotid interventions. J Vasc Surg. 2016;64(6):1719–25.
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
Помощь Обратная связь Вопросы и предложения Пользовательское соглашение Политика конфиденциальности