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。     

颈动脉狭窄支架植入术55例

目的 介绍颈动脉支架植入术的基本方法,探讨该术式治疗颈动脉狭窄的理论和临床意义。方法 55例颈动脉狭窄患者行腔内成形、支架植入术,共放支架58个,其中Wallstent支架41个,Smart支架14个,OptiMed支架3个。18例患者应用脑保护装置。结果 术中2例患者出现较重卒中,其中l例术中出现左眼视野缺损,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。2例出现轻度卒中。6例出现一过性血压降低、心动过缓,其后逐渐恢复。神经系统并发症发生率为6．9％,严重卒中为3．5％。循环系统并发症为10．3％。应用脑保护装置的患者没有神经系统并发症。结论 颈动脉支架植入术是治疗颈动脉狭窄的有效手段,在有经验的医生治疗下,操作是安全的。使用脑保护装置可明显减少神经系统并发症。     

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.     

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。     

������֧�ܳ��������Ƹ�Σ��������խ

目的探讨颈动脉支架成形术治疗高危颈动脉狭窄的可行性、安全性及短期疗效一方法自200l年8月至2003年7月，共采用颈动脉支架成形术治疗高危颈动脉狭窄8例，术前平均狭窄程度分别为(74.13=13.38)％，均为症状性病人结果狭窄位于颈内动脉6例，位于颈总动脉2例，所有病人均成功地植入支架术后狭窄程度均≤10％。全部病人无临床并发症，5例临床症状消失，3例临床症状不同程度好转随访3～27个月，无短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)等缺血性神经损害发生；影像学检查无显著再狭窄。结论颈动脉支架成形术治疗颈动脉狭窄安全有效，尤其适合于颈动脉内膜切除术高危的病人，脑保护装置可以有效减少因硬化斑块或血枪引起的并发症     

颈动脉狭窄支架置人患者血压异常情况分析

目的 探讨颈动脉支架置入术中、术后患者血压变化的特点，为采取针对性护理措施提供依据。方法 对65例行颈动脉支架置入患者的血压动态变化进行回顾性分析。结果 65例患者中51例（78．46％）发生低血压，发生在扩张或支架置入时46例，术后5例；其中血压下降持续时间〈30min26例，4h17例，24h6例，1周2例；血压〈90／60mm—Hg24例，收缩压下降〉40mmHg27例。仅1例患者术后6h出现血压升高。结论 低血压是颈动脉支架置入术常见的临床表现，及时发现和恰当地处理是提高颈动脉支架置入术患者安全性的重要环节。     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术与颈动脉支架置入术治疗颅外颈动脉狭窄的临床疗效比较

目的比较颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)与颈动脉支架置入术(carotid stenting,CAS)治疗颅外颈动脉狭窄的临床疗效,为颅外颈动脉狭窄的CEA和CAS治疗提供更丰富的临床循证医学证据。方法将40例有手术指征的颈动脉狭窄患者按治疗方法的不同分为CEA组和CAS组。2组患者均行相应手术治疗,观察、比较其临床疗效。结果 2组患者围术期并发症发生率、术后3个月2组患者的心血管并发症、脑卒中及死亡等主要终点事件发生率的差异均无统计学意义(P0.05);随访12个月,2组术侧颈动脉再狭窄、致残或致死性卒中发生率比较差异也无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论对于具有手术指征的颅外颈动脉狭窄患者,CEA与CAS具有同样的临床疗效,且安全性均较高;但仍需要大样本多中心长期循证医学证据支持。     

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.     

Initial evaluation of carotid angioplasty and stenting with three different cerebral protection devices

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to assess the effectiveness of cerebral protection devices during carotid artery angioplasty and stent placement. METHODS: Between September 1998 and September 1999, carotid angioplasty and stenting were performed in 46 patients with symptomatic (39.1%) or asymptomatic (60.9%) severe carotid artery stenosis. Wallstents were used in all patients with selective predilatation. Cerebral protection devices were used in 25 of these patients. Primary end points were perioperative neurologic complications and mortality. Data were collected prospectively. RESULTS: The overall combined end point of all neurologic deficits and death rate was 4.34%. Two neurologic events (one transient ischemic attack and one minor stroke) occurred in the unprotected group (9.53%) versus none in the group with cerebral protection. This difference is not statistically significant. The mortality rate was 0% for both groups. On an intention to treat basis, the overall technical success rate for carotid angioplasty was 97.8%, and for placement of cerebral protection devices it was 100%. An important number of particles of different sizes were captured in all cases in which cerebral protection devices were used. CONCLUSION: Experience has shown that cerebral protection during carotid angioplasty and stenting is technically feasible and appears to be effective in preventing procedure-related neurologic complications. Further investigation is warranted.     

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.     

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.     

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。     

脑保护装置下支架置入术治疗重度颈动脉狭窄

目的探讨脑保护装置下行颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)治疗重度颈动脉狭窄的近期疗效和安全性。方法回顾性分析2013年10月—2014年12月收治的48例接受CAS治疗的重度颈动脉狭窄患者临床资料,术后随访观察支架内再狭窄、短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)、脑卒中及死亡事件的发生率。结果48例患者均CAS成功,术前平均狭窄率为(85.27±11.52)%,术后残余狭窄率为(18.12±3.36)%,差异有统计学意义(P0.01)。术后随访无新发TIA、脑梗死及死亡患者,但3例患者出现支架内重度再狭窄。结论支架置入术治疗重度颈动脉狭窄是安全、有效的,但远期疗效有待观察。     

Carotid angioplasty and stenting under protection. Techniques, results and limitations

A carotid stenosis is responsible for about 30% of strokes occurring. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is considered to be the gold standard treatment of a carotid stenosis. Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is emerging as a new alternative treatment for a carotid artery stenosis, but the risk of neurological complications and brain embolism remains the major drawback to this procedure. Therefore, in order to reduce the risks, we need: 1) good indications, good patient and lesion selection; 2) correct techniques; 3) brain protection devices (cerebral protection devices should be routinely used and are mandatory for any procedure); 4) 3 types of protection devices are available, but filters are the most commonly used (all protection devices have limitations and cannot prevent from all embolic events; however, neurological complications can be reduced by 60%); 5) a good choice of the stent and correct implantation (all stents are not equivalent and have different geometrical effects); 6) pharmacological adjuncts; 7) a good team. Recent studies have shown that CAS has superior short-term outcomes than CEA in high surgical risk patients, but there are enough reported data to conclude that CAS is also not inferior to CEA in low-risk patients. CAS under protection is the standard of care and is maybe becoming the gold standard treatment of a carotid stenosis at least in some subgroups of patients.