腔内支架成形术治疗颈动脉狭窄(附64例报告)

目的：介绍颈动脉腔内支架成形术的基本方法，总结64例经验体会，探讨该术式治疗颈动脉狭窄的操作和并发症的预防。方法：64例颈动脉狭窄病人行腔内支架成形术，共放支架66个，其中Wallstent支架41个，Smart支架22个．OptiMed支架3个。应用脑保护装置26例。结果：术中出现较重卒中2例：1例术出现左眼视野缺损．3个月后仍有残余症状：1例术中出现意识丧失、右侧肢体偏瘫，经救治神志恢复。出现轻度卒中3例。10例出现一过性血压降低、心动过缓，其后逐渐恢复。1例术后出现原有神经系统症状加重。神经系统并发症发生率为7．88％，严重卒中是3.13％。循环系统并发症是15．63％。应用脑保护装置的病人仅有1例发生一过性神经系统并发症。结论：颈动脉腔内支架成形术是治疗颈动脉狭窄的有效手段，在有经验的医师操作下，治疗是安全的。使用脑保护装置可明显减少神经系统并发症。     

颈动脉狭窄的介入治疗(附40例报告)

目的 总结我科40例颈动脉支架置入术治疗颈动脉狭窄的经验。方法2000年10月～2002年7月40例颈动脉狭窄行腔内成形、支架置入术，共放支架43个，其中Wallstent支架39个，Smart支架4个。应用脑保护装置5例。结果所有病人都完成支架置入，颈内动脉口都恢复到4min以上。术中出现轻度卒中2例，较重卒中2例：1例术中出现左眼视野缺损，3月后仍有残余症状；1例术中出现意识丧失、右侧肢体偏瘫，经救治神志恢复。并发症发生率10％(4／40)，严重卒中发生率5％(2／40)，应用脑保护装置的病人无并发症发生。结论颈动脉支架置入术是治疗颈动脉狭窄的有效手段，用脑保护装置时安全保证更高。     

颈动脉支架植入术并发症分析

目的 总结颈动脉球囊扩张及支架植入术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)治疗颈动脉狭窄术后并发症及处理措施.方法 回顾性分析2006年7月至2012年1月因颈动脉狭窄而接受颈动脉球囊扩张及支架植入术(carotid artery stenting)72例患者的临床资料.CAS操作采取标准治疗方法,患者术前5d均口服阿司匹林100 mg与氯吡格雷75 mg,所有患者均先放置远端保护装置,90％以上狭窄患者进行前扩张,残留狭窄＞30％则进行后扩张.结果 72例患者成功地植入颈动脉自膨式支架80枚,全部使用远端脑保护装置,5例患者行同期手术,其中冠状动脉搭桥手术( off-pumpcoronary artery bypass grafting,OPCABG)2例,左锁骨下动脉支架植入2例,1例肾动脉支架植入.住院期间并发症的发生率为37.5％(27例),其中严重并发症(死亡/卒中/心肌梗死)发生率为1.39％(1例同侧小卒中);其他神经系统并发症包括2例同侧TIA(2.78％),1例高灌注综合征(1.39％),血液动力学不稳定并发症的发生率为29.2％(21例),其中1例高血压(1.39％),5例心动过缓(8.33％),15例术后低血压(20.8％),其他2例出现穿刺点血肿(2.78％).结论 血液动力学改变(低血压、心动过缓)是CAS围手术期主要并发症,神经系统并发症发生率较低,严重并发症少见.     

应用脑保护装置的颈动脉支架成形术治疗颈动脉狭窄

目的 总结应用脑保护装置的颈动脉支架成形术的体会,并探讨其围手术期处理要点.方法 2002年1月至2007年12月共收治122例(125侧)颈动脉狭窄性病变患者,成功完成颈动脉支架成形术123侧,均使用了脑保护装置,共置人支架124枚.结果 技术成功率为98.4%(123/125).围手术期发生一过I生脑缺血6例(4.9%),小卒中2例(1.6%),完伞性卒中1例(O.8%),严重脑缺血再灌注损伤2例(1.6%),其余113例次(91.9%)无神经系统并发症发生.无围手术期死亡.总卒中/死亡率为2.4%.86例患者术后获随访,平均随访时间为18.5(3～36)个月,超声检查提示50%～70%狭窄5例(5.8%),70%以上狭窄1例(1.2%),均无临床症状.非相关原因死亡2例.其余78例(90.7%)支架通畅,无神经系统并发症发生.结论 颈动脉支架成形术是治疗颈动脉狭窄性病变安全、有效的方法.不断提高围手术期处理水平是进一步提高疗效、降低并发症发生率的重要保证.     

应用脑保护装置实施颈动脉支架成形术的临床经验

目的探讨脑保护装置在颈动脉支架成形术中的价值。方法自2000年10月至2006年8月对65例颈动脉狭窄患者实施了颈动脉支架成形术。共植入支架75个,其中颈内动脉支架68个,颈总动脉支架2个,同时植入锁骨下动脉支架2个,椎动脉支架3个,4例术前安装了临时起搏器。结果65例中2例脑保护装置置放失败,63例成功。63例脑保护装置中26例可见斑块碎片,1例术中出现一过性脑缺血,1例同时置入椎动脉支架后发生椎动脉血栓形成;9例术中出现一过性低血压、心动过缓,4例术前安装临时起搏器者未发生术中低血压。5例出现术后低血压,1例术后原有神经系统症状加重。1例双颈动脉支架成形术后出现高血压。结论颈动脉支架成形术是治疗颈动脉狭窄的有效手段,在有脑保护装置的条件下,正规熟练的操作和严格的预防措施能有效提高安全性,减少并发症。     

颈动脉支架术中脑保护措施的应用

颈动脉狭窄是造成脑卒中的主要原凼.颈动脉支架置人术治疗颈动脉狄窄对患者创伤小、痛苦少,已逐渐成为治疗颈动脉狭窄的首选术式.而术中脑保护装置的应用更大大提高了其疗效.本文对颈动脉成形术中应用脑保护的有关问题进行概述.相信随着许多大规模、多中心临床实验的完成,脑保护下的颈动脉支架置入术将在颈动脉狭窄患者的卒中预防和治疗中发挥重要作用.     

脑保护装置在颈部动脉狭窄扩张和支架置入术中的初步应用

目的：报告脑保护装置在颈动脉和椎动脉粥样硬化性狭窄血管内扩张和支架置入术中的初步应用结果。方法：应用脑保护装置filterwire（滤网导丝）,或angioguard（血管保护伞）,对18例21处颈动脉和椎动脉粥样硬化性狭窄行血管内扩张和（或）支架置入术,并总结其临床使用结果。结果：应用脑保护装置成功施行21例次颈动脉和椎动脉狭窄血管内扩张和（或）支架置入术,介入操作方便易行,无术中和术后并发症发生。结论：脑保护装置有助于降低颈动脉和椎动脉狭窄血管内扩张和支架置入术中动脉粥样斑块或附壁血栓脱落性脑梗死的发生,提高其治疗安全性。     

颈动脉狭窄患者围手术期脑部并发症的诊治

目的 探讨颈动脉狭窄患者围手术期脑部并发症的原因及其防治措施.方法 回顾性分析2004年5月至2009年6月间接受外科治疗的133例颈动脉狭窄患者围手术期脑部并发症的原因及其处理方式.结果 本组133例颈动脉狭窄患者,其中男97例,女36例;年龄62～78岁,平均(67±8)岁.其中94例接受颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA),39例接受颈动脉支架植入术(carotid artery stenting,CAS);围手术期16例出现脑部并发症,其中3例发病次数在2次以上;术前5例出现短暂性脑缺血发作(transient ischemic attacks,TIA)及一过性脑供血不足等并发症;CEA术中5例、CAS术中4例出现TIA发作和脑过度灌注综合征(cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome,CHPS)等并发症;术后8例患者出现TIA发作、脑过度灌注综合征、脑梗死及脑出血等并发症.结论 有效控制围手术期脑部并发症的发生是外科治疗颈动脉狭窄成败的关健,脑部并发症的防治应贯穿整个围手术期.     

近端血流阻塞式脑保护装置下颈动脉支架成形术的临床研究

目的 研究近端血流阻塞式脑保护装置MO.MA系统在颈动脉支架成形术中预防脑血管栓塞的疗效,并评价其安全性及可操作性.方法 2007年10月至2008年7月,23例符合外科治疗指征的颈动脉硬化狭窄患者入选本研究,其中19例(82.6%)患者有神经系统症状.全脑血管造影后在脑保护装置MO.MA系统下行颈动脉球囊扩张及支架成形术,计算术中脑缺血时间,观察术中及术后30 d神经系统事件的发生情况.结果 颈动脉造影示,6例(26.1%)颈动脉狭窄50%～70%,17例(73.9%)颈动脉狭窄>70%.所有病例在MO.MA系统保护下颈动脉球囊扩张及支架植入均顺利进行,颈动脉平均阻断时间(5.3±1.2)min.术中及围手术期无死亡及脑卒中发生;2例在颈总动脉球囊阻断时出现短暂意识丧失伴对侧肢体短暂抽搐;2例术后出现心动过缓和低血压,持续时间分别为6 h及1周.9例患者术中颈动脉抽血中可见细小斑块碎片.术后30 d随访有1例TIA发作,1例对侧新发脑卒中,术后30 d累积脑卒中发生率及病死率为4.3%.结论 应用近端血流阻断式脑保护装置MO.MA系统在颈动脉支架成形术中预防神经系统事件发生是安全有效的,尤其适合重度及不稳定性斑块的颈动脉硬化狭窄支架成形术治疗.     

颈动脉狭窄支架血管内成形术并发症23例分析

目的探讨颈动脉狭窄支架血管内成形术并发症发生的机制、预防和预后。方法回顾性分析 1997～ 2 0 0 3年接受颈动脉支架术的 312例患者中 2 3例并发症的资料。结果本组 2 3例并发症包括轻微并发症 19例 (6 1% ) ,其中 10例表现为术中一过性心率和血压下降 (3 2 % ) ;6例在球囊扩张时表现为一过性脑缺血症状 (1 9% ) ;3例在成功置入支架后出现血压下降 ,对症处理后恢复。严重并发症 4例 (1 3% ) ,其中术中栓子脱落 1例术后偏瘫经对症治疗后恢复 ;支架移位 1例、颈外动脉闭塞 1例无神经功能障碍以及术后过度灌注出血 1例 ,患者死亡。结论颈动脉狭窄支架血管内成形术可能发生严重的并发症 ,熟悉并发症产生的机制有利于预防其发生。     

Transcervical carotid stenting with flow reversal protection: experience in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND: Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) with cerebral embolic protection is a safe alternative to carotid endarterectomy in high-risk patients. Among the various systems proposed for cerebral protection, transcervical CAS avoids crossing the lesion without protection and eliminates the complications associated with transfemoral access. This study analyzes our experience and the results obtained with a transcervical stenting technique for carotid revascularization. METHODS: From January 2005 to June 2006, 62 CAS were performed in our center in high-risk patients with >70% stenosis (38.7% had a previous neurologic event and 61.3% were asymptomatic). The indications for CAS were severe heart disease (45.1%), severe pulmonary disease (6.4%), paralysis of the contralateral laryngeal nerve (6.4%), recurrent stenosis (3.2%), and high carotid lesion (1.6%). Twenty-one patients were >80 years old. A complete neurologic examination was performed by a stroke neurologist in all patients before and after stenting. The protection system used was carotid flow reversal by transcervical access. Transcranial Doppler monitoring was done during the procedure in 35 patients. We analyzed technical success, the presence of high-intensity transient signals during the procedure, neurologic morbidity and mortality at 30 days and 6 months, and stent patency at 6 months (range, 1 to 18 months). Technical success was 96.8%. Perioperative high-intensity transient signals were observed in two patients (5.7%). In the immediate postoperative period, one patient had a transient ischemic attack of the anterior cerebral artery and another had a stroke, with contralateral hemiplegia. At 48 hours after discharge, a third patient returned to the hospital with a severe cerebral hemorrhage that required surgical drainage; hence, neurologic morbidity was 4.9%. There were no deaths at 6 months. Among the total, 98.4% of the stents remained patent, two showed restenosis of 50% to 70%, and one restenosis of >70%. No patients presented a neurologic event during the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Transcervical carotid artery stenting with flow reversal cerebral protection is a relatively simple, safe technique that avoids instrumentation of the aortic arch and crossing the target lesion without protection. It is less expensive than techniques requiring a filter device and provides excellent outcome with an acceptable incidence of complications.     

Protective carotid stenting: Clinical advantages and complications of embolic protection devices in 424 consecutive patients: Cremonesi A,Manetti R,Setacci F,et al. Stroke 2003;34:1936-43

ConclusionIn a series of 442 patients undergoing carotid angioplasty or stenting the overall neurologic complication rate was 2.5%, and complications related to the cerebral protection device occurred in 4 of 442 patients (0.9%).SummaryThe authors studied complications related to cerebral protection devices during angioplasty or stenting of the extracranial carotid artery in 442 patients who underwent percutaneous angioplasty or stenting of the extracranial carotid artery. Fifty-seven percent of the patients had no symptoms. Six different cerebral protection devices were used during this study. The three most commonly used devices were the Johnson & Johnson-Cordis Angioguard Filter (37.8%), the Boston Scientific FilterWire EX (25.1%), and the EV3 Microvena Trap Filter (18.9%).The procedure was successfully performed in 440 of 442 patients, with no periprocedural deaths. In 342 patients stents were placed. Three hundred thirty-nine of the stents were self-expanding. Predilation was performed with coronary balloons in 167 patients. The in-hospital stroke and death rate and 30-day ipsilateral stroke and death rate was 1.1%. Neurologic complications included four intracranial hemorrhages, one major stroke, four minor strokes, four transient ischemic attacks, and six instances of transient neurologic symptoms resulting from intolerance of occlusive protection devices, for a total neurologic complication rate of 2.5%. The overall procedure-related complication rate was 3.4%. There were four cerebral protection device–related complications, including one carotid dissection resulting in occlusion, one trapped guide wire requiring operative removal, and two instances of limited dissection. In the retrieved protection devices, 69% demonstrated visible plaque debris captured by the device.CommentThe data add to the growing trend of routine use of protection devices for carotid artery stenting. In an editorial accompanying this article, Drs Eckert and Zeumer, from Hamburg, Germany, note that the use of cerebral protection devices has occurred in conjunction with increased operator experience and improvements in guide wires, stents, and periprocedural anticoagulation regimens. While cerebral protection devices may contribute to improved results with carotid artery angioplasty or stenting, other facets of the procedure are also evolving and being improved.     

Transcervical carotid stenting with internal carotid artery flow reversal: feasibility and preliminary results

OBJECTIVE: Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (CAS), with or without distal protection, is associated with risk for cerebral and peripheral embolism and access site complications. To establish cerebral protection before crossing the carotid lesion and to avert transfemoral access complications, the present study was undertaken to evaluate a transcervical approach for CAS with carotid flow reversal for cerebral protection. METHODS: Fifty patients underwent CAS through a transcervical approach. All patients with symptoms had greater than 60% internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis, and all patients without symptoms had greater than 80% ICA stenosis. Twenty-one patients (42%) had symptomatic disease or ipsilateral stroke, and 8 patients (16%) had contralateral stroke. Four patients (8%) had recurrent stenosis, 7 patients (14%) had contralateral ICA occlusion, and 1 patient (2%) had undergone previous neck radiation. Twenty-seven procedures (54%) were performed with local anesthesia, and 23 (46%) with general anesthesia. Using a cervical cutdown, flow was reversed in the ICA by occluding the common carotid artery and establishing a carotid-jugular vein fistula. Pre-dilation was selective, and 8-mm to 10-mm self-expanding stents were deployed and post-dilated with 5-mm to 6-mm balloons in all cases. RESULTS: The procedure was technically successful in all patients, without significant residual stenoses. No strokes or deaths occurred. There was 1 wound complication (2%). All patients were discharged within 2 days of surgery. Mean flow reversal time was 21.4 minutes (range, 9-50 minutes). Carotid flow reversal was not tolerated in 2 patients (4%). Early in the experience, carotid flow reversal was not possible in 1 patient, and there were 1 major and 3 minor common carotid artery dissections, which resolved after stent placement. One intraoperative transient ischemic attack (2%) occurred in 1 patient in whom carotid flow was not reversed, and 1 patient with a contralateral ICA occlusion had a contralateral transient ischemic attack. At 1 to 12 months of follow-up, all patients remained asymptomatic, and all but 1 stent remained patent. CONCLUSION: Transcervical CAS with carotid flow reversal is feasible and safe. It can be done with the patient under local anesthesia, averts the complications of the transfemoral approach, and eliminates the increased complexity and cost of cerebral protection devices. Transcervical CAS is feasible when the transfemoral route is impossible or contraindicated, and may be the procedure of choice in a subset of patients in whom carotid stenting is indicated.     

颈动脉硬化狭窄支架成形常见并发症的防治

目的回顾性分析颈动脉支架成形治疗缺血性脑血管疾病围手术期常见并发症的原因及其处理。方法58例62处颈动脉狭窄行CAS治疗,成功植入41枚Wallstent支架,20枚“Z”型支架,技术成功率达98%。结果所有患者术后随访1个月,明确诊断过度灌注综合症1例,6例患者出现程度不等的头晕、头痛;12例出现颈动脉窦反应;1例术后脑MRI新发梗死,1例双侧重度狭窄的患者术中出现短暂性脑缺血发作;术中脑血管痉挛12例;发现穿刺局部血肿6例(假性动脉瘤2例),动静脉瘘1例。结论术前充分准备、术中规范化操作、术后积极正规治疗可明显降低CAS围手术期并发症、改善预后。     

Cerebral protection during carotid stenting using flow reversal

BACKGROUND: Carotid angioplasty and stenting can be used in stroke prevention in high-risk patients. As embolic complications can occur during carotid angioplasty and stenting, a device was developed to protect from cerebral embolization. METHODS: Between September 1999 and May 2002, carotid angioplasty and stenting was performed in 100 patients (84 men; mean age, 69.2 years) with symptomatic (26%) or asymptomatic (74%) severe carotid artery stenosis. Wallstents were used in all cases with selective pre-dilatation. Cerebral protection devices (Parodi Anti-Emboli System [PAES], ArteriA, San Francisco, Calif) were used in all patients. All patients were evaluated by a neurologist, both before and after the procedure. According to the criteria set forth by the large trials, the occurrence of minor, major or fatal stroke and myocardial infarction (end points) within 30 days and follow-up were determined as end points. Data were collected prospectively. RESULTS: The overall perioperative stroke and death rate was 3% (1 noncorresponding minor stroke, 1 hemorrhagic stroke, and 1 cardiac event). Four patients developed postoperative transient neurologic events (three related to hemodynamic instability and the fourth due to postoperative embolization). The overall technical success rate for carotid angioplasty (protection device placed in position percutaneously) was 99%. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of carotid angioplasty and stenting with PAES are confirmed. This innovative protection device may prevent the debris released by angioplasty from entering the cerebral circulation. Further investigation is warranted.     

In-stent recurrent stenosis after carotid artery stenting: life table analysis and clinical relevance

OBJECTIVES: Carotid artery stenting has been proposed as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy in cerebral revascularization. Although early results from several centers have been encouraging, concerns remain regarding long-term durability of carotid artery stenting. We report the incidence, characteristics, and management of in-stent recurrent stenosis after long-term follow-up of carotid artery stenting. METHODS: Carotid artery stenting (n = 122) was performed in 118 patients between September 1996 and March 2003. Indications included recurrent stenosis after previous carotid endarterectomy (66%), primary lesions in patients at high-risk (29%), and previous ipsilateral cervical radiation therapy (5%). Fifty-five percent of patients had asymptomatic stenosis; 45% had symptomatic lesions. Each patient was followed up with serial duplex ultrasound scanning. Selective angiography and repeat intervention were performed when duplex ultrasound scans demonstrated 80% or greater in-stent recurrent stenosis. Data were prospectively recorded, and were statistically analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. RESULTS: Carotid artery stenting was performed successfully in all cases, with the WallStent or Acculink carotid stent. Thirty-day stroke and death rate was 3.3%, attributable to retinal infarction (n = 1), hemispheric stroke (n = 1), and death (n = 2). Over follow-up of 1 to 74 months (mean, 18.8 months), 22 patients had in-stent recurrent stenosis (40%-59%, n = 11; 60%-79%, n = 6; > or =80%, n = 5), which occurred within 18 months of carotid artery stenting in 13 patients (60%). None of the patients with in-stent recurrent stenosis exhibited neurologic symptoms. Life table analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves predicted cumulative in-stent recurrent stenosis 80% or greater in 6.4% of patients at 60 months. Three of five in-stent recurrent stenoses occurred within 15 months of carotid artery stenting, and one each occurred at 20 and 47 months, respectively. Repeat angioplasty was performed once in 3 patients and three times in 1 patient, and repeat stenting in 1 patient, without complications. One of these patients demonstrated asymptomatic internal carotid artery occlusion 1 year after repeat intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Carotid artery stenting can be performed with a low incidence of periprocedural complications. The cumulative incidence of clinically significant in-stent recurrent stenosis (> or =80%) over 5 years is low (6.4%). In-stent restenosis was not associated with neurologic symptoms in the 5 patients noted in this cohort. Most instances of in-stent recurrent stenosis occur early after carotid artery stenting, and can be managed successfully with endovascular techniques.     

Carotid artery stenting with routine cerebral protection in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting has emerged as an alternative treatment modality in carotid occlusive disease. This study examined our experience of carotid stenting with routine cerebral embolization protection in high-risk patients. METHODS: Clinical variables and treatment outcome of high-risk patients who underwent carotid stenting with neuroprotection were analyzed during a 26-month period. RESULTS: Sixty-eight high-risk patients with 72 carotid artery stenoses were treated. Procedural success was achieved in 70 cases (97%), and symptomatic lesions existed in 17 (24%) patients. Monorail Wallstents stents were used in all cases. Neuroprotective devices used were PercuSurge (28%) and Filterwire (72%). There was no periprocedural mortality or neuroprotective device-related complications. The 30-day stroke and death rate was 2.7%, and the overall complication rate was 6.9%. All stented vessels remained patent during the follow-up period (mean 15.3 +/- 4.2, range 1 to 23 months). Two asymptomatic in-stent restenosis (3%) occurred at 6 and 8 months, which were both successfully treated with balloon angioplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that percutaneous carotid stenting with routine use of a cerebral protection device is a feasible and effective treatment in high-risk patients with carotid occlusive disease.