血管成形术治疗症状性重度颈动脉狭窄的临床研究

目的探讨颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)和颈动脉支架成形术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)治疗症状性重度颈动脉狭窄的近期和中期临床效果。方法回顾性地分析了2016年1月至2018年12月在我院接受CEA或CAS治疗的203例症状性重度颈动脉狭窄患者的临床资料,分析两种术式的围手术期及中期并发症情况。结果共纳入症状性重度颈动脉狭窄患者203人,分为CAS组(n=132)与CEA组(n=71),术后随访时间为1 y。统计学分析患者在年龄、性别、危险因素、血压等方面均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。围术期并发症分析中显示,CEA组颈部肿胀3例(P=0.017);CAS组30 d内卒中比例明显高于CEA组(P=0.034)。1 y随访结果分析显示,CAS组再狭窄比例明显高于CEA组(P=0.047);在心肌梗死、死亡、脑卒中方面两组间无明显统计学差异。结论CAS与CEA均可安全有效的治疗症状性重度颈动脉狭窄,围术期并发症方面CEA组颈部肿胀明显高于CAS组,CAS组30 d内卒中及1 y再狭窄比例明显高于CEA组。     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术60例临床分析

目的总结颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)治疗有症状颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄的疗效及并发症。方法回顾性分析60例应用CEA治疗颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄病人的临床资料,探讨手术适应证、疗效及手术并发症的预防。结果手术效果良好57例,术区血肿行再次手术清除1例,对侧脑梗死偏瘫1例。1例死于术后急性肾功能衰竭。随访6个月复查CTA,5例出现再狭窄。结论 CEA治疗颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄是一种简单、安全的方法,个体化围手术期处理可以降低高危病人的病死率。     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术与颈动脉支架术的疗效及安全性的比较

目的比较颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)和颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)的疗效和安全性。方法对70例颈动脉狭窄患者进行颈动脉狭窄内膜剥脱术或颈动脉狭窄支架置入术,评价手术疗效及安全性。结果术后30d主要终点事件(卒中/心肌梗死/死亡)发生率CEA组为12.50%,CAS组为10.53%,差异无统计学意义;围手术期并发症发生率CEA组为21.86%,CAS组为21.05%,差异无统计学意义;术后1 y随访,远期并发症发生率CEA组为9.38%,CAS组为10.53%,差异无统计学意义;结论 CAS治疗颈动脉狭窄与CEA具有同样明确疗效和安全性。     

颈动脉内膜切除与支架置入治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄的疗效比较

目的 探讨颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄的近期疗效及安全性.方法 195例症状性颈动脉狭窄(≥60％)患者,随机分为颈动脉内膜切除术组(CEA组,97例),颈动脉支架组(CAS组,98例).CEA组在全麻下行颈动脉内膜切除术,CAS组采用自膨式镍钛合金支架治疗.分别评价两组术中、术后7d、30 d和90 d内终点事件发生率(卒中/死亡)及治疗相关的并发症,术中、术后7d、术后30 d及90d行颈动脉超声,头颅CT/MRI、NIHSS评分.结果 CAS组术后7d内死亡1例,卒中2例,发生率3.1％.CEA组术后7d死亡1例,2例卒中,发生率为3.1％,两组差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).术中及术后7 d CEA组术后并发脑神经损伤较CAS组高(P＜0.05),卒中/死亡、急性颈动脉闭塞、高灌注综合征、局部血肿形成,两组差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).CAS组与CEA组神经功能缺失表现均明显改善,两组差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).术后7d、30 d、90 d两组头颅CT/MRI差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 CAS及CEA在治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄,预防卒中复发方面具有相似的近期效果,但其远期效果有待于进一步研究.     

脑过度灌注综合征的辅助检查

<正>脑过度灌注综合征(cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome,CHS)是颈动脉狭窄血管重建术后少见而又严重的并发症[1]。目前颈动脉狭窄常用的治疗方法包括颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)及颈动脉支架成形术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)。据文献报道,CEA术后患者CHS发病率为0.2%~18.9%,而CAS术后CHS发病率为1.1%~25%[1]。关于CHS发病机制的假说,目前普遍被接受的是CHS与脑长期低血流     

颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄的近期疗效及安全性观察

目的分析颈动脉狭窄患者分别行支架置入术及内膜切除术后的安全性及近期临床疗效。方法 80例颈动脉狭窄患者经会诊及患者同意后,按照手术方案不同分为CEA组和CAS组。其中CEA组40例行内膜切除术,CAS组40例行支架置入术。比较2组近期疗效及相关并发症情况。结果 2组治疗前后NIHSS评分比较无明显差异(P0.05),组内治疗后评分(4.1±1.7,3.9±1.8)均较治疗前(6.5±2.4,6.3±3.1)明显降低(P0.05);随访6个月,CEA组颈动脉再狭窄率5.0%,与CAS组的7.5%比较无明显差异(P0.05);不良反应组间比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论颈动脉支架置入术及内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄疗效无差异。支架置入术患者住院时间短,恢复较快,且术后并发症较少,安全性较高。     

颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄的治疗

卒中与颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄的程度具有显著关系，如果狭窄的颈动脉存在形态不稳定的斑块及溃疡型斑块，发生卒中的危险性明显增高。多项大规模临床试验已证实颈动脉内膜切除术（carotid endarterectomy，CEA）是颈动脉狭窄的有效治疗方法，能显著降低术后几年内发生卒中的危险。近20年来，随着血管介入技术的发展，以经皮血管成形术（percutaneous transluminal angioplasty，PTA）和颈动脉支架置入术（carotid artery stent placement，CASP）为代表的微侵袭治疗已广泛应用于临床治疗。     

颈动脉和冠状动脉联合病变的处理策略

颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)和颈动脉支架置入术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)皆是治疗颈动脉狭窄的有效方法.但是,动脉粥样硬化性疾病是一种慢性进展性多发性血管疾病,多侵犯体内大中型动脉,颈动脉与冠状动脉都是体循环系统的中型肌弹力动脉.当颈动脉和冠状动脉联合病变时,应当在何时、用怎样的方式处理颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄,还没有统一的定论.本文参阅近年来相关文献,对现有的颈动脉合并冠状动脉狭窄的治疗方案进行综述,以期能够对其治疗有一定的参考价值.     

解除颈动脉狭窄对认知功能的影响

在老年人群中,颈动脉狭窄发生较高,颈动脉狭窄可引起缺血性卒中,据报道,15%～20%的缺血性卒中是由颈动脉狭窄所致[1].颈动脉狭窄也可引起认知损害[2].颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)或颈动脉支架置入术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)是治疗颈动脉狭窄的常用手段,这些措施在解除颈动脉狭窄的同时也可能影响认知功能[3].现就解除颈动脉狭窄之后认知功能变化的有关进展做一综述.     

颈动脉支架置入术并发症及处理方法

众所周知,严重的颈动脉狭窄是发生同侧脑卒中的重要危险因素。与药物治疗比较,颈内动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)能明显降低发生脑卒中的危险性[1]。颈动脉球囊扩张和支架置入术(carotid angioplasty and stenting,CAS)     

T-Configuration Stent Placement for Carotid Bifurcation Stenosis Co-Existing with Ipsilateral Intracranial Stenosis: A Case Report and Literature Review

In patients with carotid bifurcation stenosis co-existing with ipsilateral intracranial artery stenosis, combined treatment with carotid artery stenting (CAS)/carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and extracranial-to- intracranial (EC-IC) bypass can be a useful option to prevent future ischemic stroke events. EC-IC bypass requires a sufficient antegrade flow in the ipsilateral external carotid artery. However, standard CAS/CEA occasionally lead to external carotid artery occlusion. Herein, we present a case of successful one-stage endovascular revascularization of both the antegrade internal and external carotid artery flow using the carotid T-stent technique for carotid bifurcation stenosis co-existing with ipsilateral middle cerebral artery stenosis.     

Comparative Analysis of Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy in Clinical Practice

The objective of the study was to describe immediate and long-term results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid stenting (CAS) with embolic protection in patients with severe carotid artery stenosis in clinical practice. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study, conducted between 2009 and 2017.During the analyzed period, 2132 operations (2006 patients) were performed: 1215 (57%) CEA and 917 (43%) CAS. 278 patients (13.8% of 2006) were not contactable during the follow-up period (>30 days) leaving 1791 cases (1728 patients) for inclusion in the analysis. Propensity score matching was used to compare the treatment results of groups (561 cases were matched out of 1791). The results of 615 CEA (316 eversion, 299 “classic” with patch) and 615 CAS (using a variety of carotid stents) were compared. Results: In the asymptomatic subgroup (n = 455), the 30-day rate of stroke was not significantly different between the CEA group and the CAS group (1.5% versus 2.4%, P = .48). The 5-year rate of stroke was not significantly higher for CAS than for CEA (4.6% versus 3.3%, P = .3). In the symptomatic subgroup (n = 160), the 30-day rate of stroke was significantly higher in the CAS group than in the CEA group (7.5% versus 2.5%, P = .04). The 5-year rate of stroke was 13% for CAS and 8.7% for CEA (P = .2). Conclusions: In the symptomatic subgroup, the 30-day rate of stroke was significantly higher in the CAS group than in the CEA group, therefore the use of CAS for symptomatic patients in routine practice should be limited. Our study demonstrates that the rates of stroke and survival after CEA and CAS in patients aged 80 years or younger with asymptomatic or symptomatic severe carotid stenosis did not differ significantly over a period of 5 years.     

The Clinical Outcomes of 75 Consecutive Patients with Cervical Carotid Artery Stenosis Treated by Carotid Artery Stenting

Objective

The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical outcome of 75 consecutive patients with cervical carotid artery stenosis and who were treated by carotid artery stenting (CAS) only.

Methods

From February 2003 to June 2008, there were 78 stents placed in 75 symptomatic patients (mean age : 67.3 years); 69 patients had carotid stenosis ≥70%, and 6 patients had asymptomatic stenosis ≥80%. No carotid endarterectomy (CEA) was performed during the same period. The patients were clinically followed-up for a mean of 20.1 months.

Results

The procedures were technically successful in all cases. Three (3.8%) patients had procedure-related complications. During the 30-day postprocedural period, there were no restenosis or major stroke. Minor stroke was noticed in 3 (3.8%) patients and 1 (1.3%) of the 75 patients suddenly expired 2 days after discharge. There were no new neurological symptoms that developed during the clinical follow-up period. The results of our series were not inferior to those the previously published in CAS studies, and in fact they were better.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that CAS may be safe and useful for the treatment of cervical carotid artery stenosis when it is used as the first line treatment in those institutions that lack enough experience with CEA.     

Carotid artery stenting: Current state of evidence and future directions

Both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are common treatments for carotid artery stenosis. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared CEA to CAS in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. These studies have suggested that CAS is more strongly associated with periprocedural stroke; however, CEA is more strongly associated with myocardial infarction. Published long‐term outcomes report that CAS and CEA are similar. A reduction in complications associated with CAS has also been demonstrated over time. The symptomatic status of the patient and history of previous CEA or cervical radiotherapy are significant factors when deciding between CEA or CAS. Numerous carotid artery stents are available, varying in material, shape and design but with minimal evidence comparing stent types. The role of cerebral protection devices is unclear. Dual antiplatelet therapy is typically prescribed to prevent in‐stent thrombosis, and however, evidence comparing periprocedural and postprocedural antiplatelet therapy is scarce, resulting in inconsistent guidelines. Several RCTs are underway that will aim to clarify some of these uncertainties. In this review, we summarize the development of varying techniques of CAS and studies comparing CAS to CEA as treatment options for carotid artery stenosis.     

症状性颈动脉狭窄伴有同侧中动脉狭窄的介入治疗效果研究

目的   比较单纯颈动脉支架置入术治疗和联合颈动脉、大脑中动脉支架置入术治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄伴有中动脉狭窄的缺血性卒中或短暂性脑缺血发作（transient ischemic attack,TIA）患者短期终点事件发生率。 方法  回顾2010年1月～2013年12月采用血管内支架治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄伴有同侧大脑中动脉狭窄的缺血性卒中或TIA患者的临床资料。根据治疗情况将患者分为单纯颈动脉支架置入术治疗组和联合颈动脉、大脑中动脉支架置入术治疗组。比较两组术后90?d终点事件（包括同侧缺血性卒中复发、症状性脑出血及死亡风险）的发生率。 结果  共有21例患者纳入本研究,男性15例,女性6例,平均年龄（58.5±3.6）岁,其中16例患者进行了颈动脉支架治疗,5例患者进行了颈动脉联合中动脉支架治疗。颈动脉支架治疗组90?d终点事件发生3例（18.75%）,颈动脉联合中动脉支架治疗组发生1例终点事件（20%）,两组间差异无显著性（P=0.952）。两组发生的终点事件均为缺血性卒中复发,无症状性脑出血及死亡患者。 结论  对于伴有颈动脉及大脑中动脉狭窄的缺血性卒中或TIA患者,与单纯颈动脉支架治疗相比同时进行颈动脉及大脑中动脉支架治疗手术未减少术后90?d同侧缺血性卒中复发风险。     

颈动脉支架成形术与药物治疗颈动脉狭窄的对比研究

目的 分析颈动脉支架成形术（CAS）与药物治疗颈动脉狭窄的疗效，并评价其安全性。方法 2003年11月至2006年3月采用颈动脉支架成形术治疗颈内动脉狭窄（狭窄率≥50％）21例,于围手术期进行抗血小板治疗及控制危险因素。单纯药物治疗组53例，药物治疗方案同治疗组。临床随访6～28个月。结果 21例手术操作完全成功，术后残余狭窄＜30％，术中3例患者出现一过性心率减慢、血压下降，2例出现颈内动脉远端血管痉挛，治疗后好转；术后未发生新的卒中，颈动脉超声未显示再狭窄。药物治疗组随访期间，5例患者再发卒中，颈动脉超声检查发现14例患者狭窄程度加重，其中2例血管造影证实颈内动脉完全闭塞。结论 与药物治疗组比较，CAS治疗颈内动脉狭窄可以提高患者的生活质量，而且比较安全，短期疗效较好，但有待大样本研究结果证实     

Carotid artery revascularization

Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the United States, and up to one third of patients have a stroke secondary to carotid occlusive disease. Surgical management has firmly established itself as an important modality in treating this disease. Several prospective randomized trials have defined the patients that would have the most benefit from carotid endarterectomy (CEA). These patient populations include asymptomatic patients with a >or= 60% stenosis and symptomatic patients with a >or= 50% stenosis. The timing of CEA after stroke remains controversial, but recent studies advocate early CEA in a select group of patients. During the CEA, the method of closing of the arteriotomy has an overall effect on the safety of the procedure as well as long-term outcome. As compared with primary repair of the arteriotomy, patch closure has been shown to decrease the frequency of restenosis. In addition, carotid eversion endarterectomy (CEE) is an alternative method to remove the plaque that has a similar efficacy to standard CEA. The role of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) continues to evolve and offers the patient a less invasive method of treating the carotid plaque.     

Age and gender disparities in the risk of carotid revascularization procedures

The potential effect of age and gender stratification in the outcome of patients with carotid artery stenosis undergoing carotid revascularization procedures (CRP) may have important implications in clinical practice. Both European Stroke Organization and American Heart Association guidelines suggest that age and sex should be taken into account when selecting a CRP for an individual patient. We reviewed available literature data through Medline and Embase. Our search was based on the combination of terms: age, gender, sex, carotid artery stenosis, carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Postoperative stroke and mortality rates increased with age after any CRP (CEA or CAS), especially in patients aged over 75 years. Older patients with carotid artery stenosis undergoing CAS were found to have a nearly double risk of stroke or death compared with CEA, while CEA was found to benefit more patients aged over 70 years with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Male patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis had lower stroke/mortality rates and benefited more from CEA compared with females. For the periprocedural risk of stroke or death in patients with carotid artery stenosis after CAS no sex differences were found. Therefore, CEA appears to have lower perioperative risks than CAS in patients aged over 70 years, and thus should be the treatment of choice if not contraindicated. The periprocedural risk of CEA is lower in men than in women, while there was no effect of gender on the periprocedural risk of CAS.     

High rate of restenosis after carotid artery stenting in patients with high-grade internal carotid artery stenosis

OBJECTIVE: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the gold-standard procedure for the majority of patients with high-grade symptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis and also for specified high-grade asymptomatic stenoses; however, a proportion of patients are treated with carotid endovascular therapy. We aimed to document medium-term clinical and neurosonographical outcome after carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: 53 patients (mean age: 65 +/- 8 years) with high-grade (> or = 70 % by means of duplex sonography) carotid artery stenosis were enrolled into the study. Nineteen patients had asymptomatic, 34 patients had symptomatic stenoses. All patients had a pre-interventional CT, Doppler and duplex sonography, and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) prior to the procedural DSA. All patients were offered CEA as the gold-standard procedure and as an alternative to CAS. Both clinical and Duplex sonographical follow-up was obtained at day 1 and 7, month 1, month 3, month 6, month 12, and every subsequent 6 months after the procedure. Mean follow-up time was 22 +/- 1.6 months (+/- SEM). RESULTS: 2/53 patients suffered from stroke. A further 2 patients suffered from carotid artery occlusion shortly after CAS. The cumulative rate of restenosis during follow-up was 24.5 % (13/53). Four of these (7.5 %) were of high-grade and led to further interventional or surgical therapy. CONCLUSIONS: A high rate of restenosis was found during follow-up after CAS. Our analysis of non-selected patients emphasizes that CEA remains the gold-standard procedure for the treatment of symptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis. The frequently performed endovascular treatment of carotid stenosis outside the setting of a randomized controlled trial is not supported by our data.