颈动脉内膜剥脱术在双侧颈动脉中、重度狭窄患者治疗中的应用

目的 评估颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)在双侧颈动脉中、重度狭窄患者治疗中的应用情况.方法 回顾性分析2006年1月至2009年12月北京协和医院收治的82例双侧颈动脉中、重狭窄患者的临床资料,其中64例行单侧CEA,18例行双侧CEA.结果 82例患者共施行100例次CEA,92例次采用颈动脉补片,94例次采用血管内转流管,均顺利完成.76例患者术后恢复顺利;2例出现心肌缺血及心肌梗死;1例因大面积脑梗死死亡;3例出现过度灌注,其中1例最终导致脑出血.79例完成随访的患者中,76例(96.2%)无术侧颈动脉相关脑缺血事件发生,1例发现手术侧轻度再狭窄,2例出现神经功能障碍.结论 对于双侧颈动脉中、重度狭窄患者,只要指征明确,均应施行CEA.     

280例颅外脑血管狭窄的血管内支架成形术的疗效观察

目的:探讨血管内支架成形术防治颅外脑血管狭窄患者缺血性卒中的有效性及安全性。方法:2005年6月~2009年5月我院神经内科对280例颅外脑血管狭窄患者行血管内支架成形术。其中颈内动脉180例,锁骨下动脉下48例,椎动脉84例;症状性狭窄178例,其中62例表现为短暂性脑缺血发作,116例表现为脑梗死,非症状性狭窄102例。观察记录患者的一般情况、手术效果、围手术期并发症,随访并观察远期预后。结果:手术成功率为100%;术后1月内发生脑缺血事件4例(1.43%);过度灌注7例(2.5%),心肌梗死1例(0.35%),颈动脉窦反应延长21例(7.5%);无造影剂相关肾病、脑出血及围手术期死亡发生。在平均44.3个月的随访中,支架内再狭窄14例(4.49%),颈内动脉支架6例(3.33%),椎动脉支架5例(5.95%),锁骨下动脉支架3例(6.25%);远期缺血事件共发生17例(6.07%),其中颈动脉系统14例(82.4%),随访期内无脑出血发生。结论:血管内支架成形术是防治颅外脑血管狭窄患者缺血性卒中有效且安全的方法。     

单中心颈动脉内膜切除术和颈动脉支架置入术治疗颈动脉狭窄的临床结局及认知功能分析

背景 近年来关于颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)和颈动脉支架置入术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)治疗颈动脉狭窄后认知功能改变的研究,可能为颈动脉狭窄治疗方式的选择提供新的思路.目的 探讨CEA、CAS治疗颈动脉狭窄的有效性和对认知功能产生的影响.方法 回顾性分析2018年9月-2020年9月于解放军总医院第一医学中心治疗的颈动脉狭窄患者病例,比较CEA组与CAS组相关疗效指标(总有效率及脑缺血、脑梗死、再狭窄发生率)和蒙特利尔认知评估量表(Montreal cognitive assessment,MoCA)得分.结果 共计103例患者纳入分析,其中CEA组54例、CAS组49例,两组基线资料差异无统计学意义.CEA组、CAS组不良事件(脑缺血、脑梗死、再狭窄)发生总例数分别为8例(14.81％)和5例(10.20％),差异无统计学意义(P=0.458).CAS组总有效率83.67％(41/49),高于CEA组的66.67％(36/54)(P=0.047).两组术前MoCA评分差异无统计学意义,术后3个月CAS组MoCA评分(23.26±2.55)高于CEA组(18.48±2.41),差异有统计学意义(P<0.001).结论 CEA和CAS均能改善颈动脉狭窄,不良事件少、安全性高;但接受CAS治疗的患者认知功能得分和总有效率更高.     

颅外段颈动脉狭窄自膨式支架成形术临床效果及安全性探讨

目的探讨颈动脉颅外段狭窄应用自膨式支架成形术的手术方法、临床效果及安全性。方法对症状性颈内动脉狭窄〉50％,无症状性狭窄〉75％的颅外段颈动脉狭窄患者,根据血管狭窄情况,选择合适球囊预扩后满意后,将自膨式支架送至预想的位置释放,覆盖狭窄部位。结果78例患者共治疗80支血管,置入81枚支架,配合使用56枚保护伞,支架置入技术成功率为100％。狭窄程度均明显改善,狭窄程度由原来的（87±10）％下降至（13±6）％,狭窄血管最大血流速度从（190±14）cm／s下降至（84±6）cm／s。21例发生短暂性血压及心率下降,29例发生持续性低血压及心率下降,1例（未使用保护伞）术中出现同侧大脑中动脉急性闭塞事件,紧急溶栓、碎栓后血管开通,其余77例术中无中风并发症。13例围术期出现过度灌注表现,无脑出血等严重并发症。术后患者症状均明显改善,随访6～32个月,颈动脉超声检查77例支架内无再狭窄,1例出现再狭窄（〈50％）,但患者无症状,继续随访观察。结论应用自膨式支架成形术治疗颈动脉颅外段狭窄临床效果好,只要正确选择适应证,围术期处理得当,并发症少,安全性高。     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗颈动脉狭窄支架术后再狭窄的临床研究

目的??探讨颈动脉内膜剥脱术（CEA）在颈动脉狭窄支架成型术（CAS）后再狭窄治疗缺血性脑 卒中的围术期安全性及近中期效果。方法??回顾性分析 2016 年 1 月—2017 年 12 月湖南中医药大学第一附属 医院 56 例行 CEA 或 CAS 治疗的颈动脉中重度狭窄患者,其中颈动脉狭窄支架术后再狭窄 9 例（治疗组） , 颈动脉中重度狭窄 47 例（对照组） 。记录两组患者手术切口长度、动脉切开长度、手术时间、血管阻断时间 及围术期相关并发症 ; 随访 6 ～ 30 个月,记录两组患者包括死亡在内的不良反应发生率。结果??两组患者手 术时间、血管阻断时间、围术期并发症及术后近中期效果比较,差异无统计学意义（ P >0.05） ; 治疗组切口 长度及颈动脉切开长度较对照组长（ P <0.05） 。结论??CEA 治疗颈动脉狭窄支架术后再狭窄安全有效。充分 的术前评估、术中电生理监测、娴熟的显微手术技巧及术后管理是提高 CEA 安全性、降低手术风险及并发 症的关键。     

颈动脉支架植入术治疗放疗后颈动脉狭窄

目的：探讨颈动脉支架植入术（ CAS）治疗头颈部肿瘤放疗后颈动脉狭窄的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析13例头颈部肿瘤放疗后颈动脉狭窄患者经支架血管成形术的临床资料。患者颈动脉狭窄均经DSA确诊,狭窄部位均位于颈总动脉或者颈内动脉起始段,其中合并椎动脉重度狭窄5例,合并大脑中动脉重度狭窄1例,合并基底动脉顶端动脉瘤1例。结果13例患者中成功植入自膨式支架14枚。颈动脉狭窄率由术前的（82±8）％降至术后的（12±6）％。全部患者术中及术后均无短暂性脑缺血发作和脑梗死发生。术后79 h发生脑出血后死亡1例,术后随访3～120个月,平均（50±1.5）个月,彩超检查均未见明显再狭窄,无支架断裂和移位。结论 CAS治疗放疗后颈动脉狭窄相对安全可行,疗效确切,具有创伤小、恢复快等优点。     

血管内成形和支架置入术对脑动脉狭窄患者的短中期疗效研究

目的:探讨血管内成形和支架置入术治疗脑动脉狭窄患者的短中期疗效。方法:通过对行血管内成形和支架置入术治疗的20例脑动脉狭窄患者术后每三个月进行1次随访,记录卒中发生和症状改变情况,进行影像学检查。结果:20例患者随访期间出现TIA发作1例,DSA检查发现支架内再狭窄50%,1例患者发生脑梗死,DSA检查发现支架内远端血管闭塞,其余所有患者均无明显卒中症状,随访期末CTA或颈动脉彩超检查显示,支架部位血管再通良好,均无明显血管再狭窄出现。结论:脑血管内成形和支架置入术具有良好的近期疗效,术后对各项危险因素进行有效控制,长期应用抗血小板药物联合抗动脉硬化治疗能够明显降低远期再狭窄率,可取得相对理想的远期疗效。     

颈动脉狭窄行支架成形术治疗的临床疗效

目的本文旨在总结颈动脉狭窄行支架成形术治疗的临床疗效,以分析其安全性及有效性。方法对36例颈动脉狭窄患者行支架成形术治疗,其中男性32例,女性4例;平均年龄为68岁。术前3天详细体格检查,常规行临床化验和头颅CT检查。根据CREATE前瞻性研究结果,采用Protege自膨式支架和Spider保护装置。结果 36例患者颈动脉支架成形术全部成功。颈动脉管腔狭窄率由术前的(85.24±11.54)%降至(8.13±4.37)%。术后临床随访,其中2例在支架释放时出现心率减慢、血压下降等迷走反射,反复给阿托品处理后恢复正常。2例患者术后3天内出现了病灶侧新发梗死灶,临床症状加重并有肢体活动障碍,经治疗后恢复。无死亡、无支架移位、无严重缺血和出血性卒中发生。结论颈动脉支架成形术治疗是安全、有效的,随着介入材料的不断进步,技术操作水平的不断提高,这项技术会为更多的颈动脉狭窄患者提供更好的治疗,从而降低卒中的发生率及残死率。     

支架成形术与单纯药物治疗症状性大脑中动脉重度狭窄的临床对比研究

目的 评价并比较症状性大脑中动脉狭窄支架成形术与单纯药物治疗的安全性及远期疗效.方法 回顾性分析自2009年10月至2015年1月因症状性大脑中动脉严重粥样硬化狭窄(狭窄度超过70％)在我院接受治疗的146例患者的资料,根据患者治疗方案的不同分为支架组67例,药物组79例,患者的临床基线资料、术前术后影像学结果、围手术期并发症情况、临床随访期间不良事件发生情况、影像学复查情况被前瞻性记录并被回顾性分析.结果 ①接受治疗后30 d内支架组4例(6.0％,4/67)发生卒中,包括2例(3.0％,2/67)致死致残性卒中,药物组3例(3.8％,3/79)出现缺血性卒中包括1例(1.3％,1/79)致残性卒中,支架组30 d内卒中及致死致残性卒中发生率略高于药物组,但无统计学差异(P＞0.05).②两组所有患者随访(20.8±9.2)个月,30 d后随访期间,支架组共4例(6.2％,4/65)发生治疗侧缺血性卒中,4例均为非致死致残性卒中;药物组共7例(9.0％,7/78)出现治疗侧缺血性卒中,6例(7.7％,6/78)为致残性卒中.两组随访期间总的卒中发生率无统计学差异(P＞0.05),但支架组致死致残性卒中发生率明显低于药物组(P =0.032).结论 支架成形术治疗大脑中动脉狭窄的安全性较单纯药物治疗稍差,两种治疗手段对卒中预防的总体效果无明显差别,但支架成形术对远期致死致残性卒中的预防效果优于单纯药物治疗.     

临床研究支架血管成形术治疗颈内动脉起始段狭窄15例分析

目的 探讨支架血管技术治疗颈动脉起始段狭窄的临床效果.方法 对15例颈动脉颅外段狭窄的患者行全脑血管造影,置入支架,术中12例进行球囊预扩张、15例均应用脑保护装置.结果 15例支架置入均获成功,血管残余狭窄程度＜30%.术后随访13例(10～18个月),1例发生再狭窄(狭窄率＞50%).结论 血管内支架成形术是治疗颈动脉狭窄的一种有效方法,颈动脉支架成形术可以明显降低颈动脉狭窄患者的卒中发生率.     

Percutaneous transluminal stenting in patients with carotid artery stenosis

ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of percutaneous transluminal stenting for pati ents with carotid artery stenosis.Methods Selective percutaneous transluminal stenting was performed for patients with sym ptomatic carotid artery stenosis (luminal narrowing ≥70%). Success rates and c omplications associated with the procedures were observed. During six months of follow-up, both recurrent symptom and restenosis rates were recorded. Results There were 17 bifurcating lesions among 27 stenoses in 26 patients, of whom 18 had concomitant coronary artery diseases. The acute procedural success rate was 96.3% (26/27), and the degree of stenosis was reduced from 88.6%±8.9% （ran ge 70-100） to 0.4%±2.0% （range 0-10）. Six patients developed severe brady cardia and hypotension, and 3 experienced transient loss of consciousness during balloon dilatation. During hospitalization, 2 patients experienced loss of con sciousness and convulsion, respectively, due to hyperperfusion, and both recover ed 12 hours later. There were 2 minor stroke cases (7.4%) but no cases of majo r stroke or death. At the 6-month follow-up, there were no cases of TIA or ne w onset of stroke. There was no restenosis detected in 16 cases using angiograp hy and in 10 cases using MRI in 6 to 16 months of follow-up. Conclusions Percutaneous transluminal stenting for patients with carotid artery stenosis has a high procedural success rate with few and acceptable complications. Few pati ents suffered from recurrent symptoms or showed restenosis in long-term follow -up.     

脑保护下颈动脉支架成形术治疗颈动脉中重度钙化狭窄的疗效分析

 目的  评价脑保护下颈动脉支架成形术(carotid angioplasty and stenting,CAS)治疗颈动脉中重度钙化狭窄的安全性及有效性。方法  28例颈动脉中重度钙化狭窄患者接受了脑保护下颈动脉支架植入术,均接受了术前颈动脉CT血管造影检查及术前术后头颅MRI检查,评价术后新发弥散加权(diffusion weighted imaging,DWI)病灶、术后支架即刻残余狭窄率与钙化斑块的关系。结果  28例次CAS的即刻成功率为100%。围手术期无死亡或心肌梗死等严重并发症。术后3天内复查头颅MRI:新发DWI病灶15例(53.6%),均无神经系统症状。根据术后有无新发DWI病灶,将患者分为阳性组和阴性组,比较两组钙化斑块的位置、体积大小、钙化弧度(calcium radian,CR)及Agatston钙化评分、钙化CT值、钙化斑块体积百分比和颈动脉斑块最大厚度,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后12个月内,1例患者发生手术侧脑卒中,其余27例恢复良好,无短暂性脑缺血发作或脑卒中发生。术后1年复查颈动脉超声,并随访颈部X线,支架内再狭窄发生率为0,支架断裂发生率为0。结论  在实施远端脑保护装置的情况下,CAS对颈动脉中重度钙化狭窄是一种安全有效的治疗方法。钙化斑块的位置、体积大小、CR、Agatston钙化评分、钙化斑块CT值、钙化斑块体积百分比和颈动脉斑块最大厚度对术后新发DWI病灶的发生率无明显影响。     

Treatment of patients older than 60 years with symptomatic vertebrobasilar artery stenosis

Background Vertebrobasilar artery stenosis is an important cause of ischemic posterior circulation strokes. This study aimed at evaluating the safety and efficacy of treatment including conservative therapy alone and conservative plus endovascular therapy for elderly patients with symptomatic vertebrobasilar artery stenosis.
Methods Patients older than 60 years with symptomatic vertebrobasilar artery stenosis （ ≥50%） confirmed by cerebral angiography were enrolled. All of them were treated with medical therapy and some with additional stent-assisted angioplasty （the stenting subgroup）. Their clinical, imaging, intervention and follow-up data were analyzed.Results One hundred and seventeen consecutive elderly patients （100 men, mean age （68.1 ±5.1） years） were enrolled and followed up for a mean time of 28.4 months; 81.7% of them were symptomatically resolved or improved; a stroke rate of 5.1% and a stroke-related death rate of 1.7% were found among them during the hospitalization and follow-up. In the stenting subgroup, 78 balloon expandable stents were employed in the 70 patients with a technical success rate of 98.7% and the mean degree of stenosis was significantly reduced from （81.7±14.3）% before stenting to （8.3±4.2）% after stenting （P 〈0.001）. Four （5.7%） periprocedural strokes occurred, of whom two led to death within 30 days after the procedure. During the follow-up （mean 27.7 months）, sixty of the surviving 68 patients in the stenting subgroup were symptomatically resolved or improved. Only one （1.5%） posterior circulation stroke occurred, while duplex ultrasound scan of 34 patients demonstrated 10 （29.4%） in-stent restenosis.
Conclusions Appropriate utilization of conservative therapy alone and conservative plus endovascular therapy may improve short-term clinical outcomes for elderly patients with symptomatic vertebrobasilar artery stenosis. Furthermore, stent-assisted angioplasty is technically feasible and relatively safe in elderly patients.     

支架置入术治疗症状性弓上颅外动脉狭窄的疗效及安全性研究

目的：探讨支架置入治疗症状性弓上颅外动脉狭窄(SECAS)的疗效及安全性。方法纳入我院神经内科2011年1月至2014年12月收治的SECAS患者32例,完善相关影像学检查后行支架置入术,观察其技术成功率、围手术期并发症发生率、1年支架再狭窄率、卒中复发率和死亡率。结果颈内动脉起始段狭窄支架置入24例、椎动脉开口狭窄支架置入12例、锁骨下动脉狭窄支架置入2例,其中6例为同期行颈动脉和椎动脉支架置入术,技术成功率为100%;颈动脉支架患者18例发生颈动脉窦反应,5例磁共振弥散成像发现无症状性腔隙性梗死灶,1例出现穿刺部位损伤,1例出现桥脑腔隙性梗死,所有患者未出现永久性神经损害;无动脉夹层、支架内急性血栓形成、脑出血和心肌梗死等并发症。随访1年,1例椎动脉支架狭窄,无临床症状;无卒中复发和死亡患者。结论支架置入术是一种治疗SECAS安全、有效的方法,严格纳入患者和规范操作有利于减少并发症发生。     

A meta-analysis of carotid endarterectomy versus stenting in the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis

Background  Carotid stenosis is one of the common reasons for patients with ischemic stroke, and the two invasive options carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are the most popular treatments. But the relative efficacy and safety of the methods are not clear.

Methods  About 521 articles related to CAS and CEA for carotid stenosis published in 1995–2011 were retrieved from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library (CL), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) China Journal Full-Test database. Of them, eight articles were chosen. Meta-analysis was used to assess the relative risks.

Results  The eight studies included 3873 patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, including 1941 cases in the carotid stent angioplasty group, and 1932 cases in the carotid endarterectomy group. Fixed effect model analysis showed that within 30 days of incidence of all types of strokes, surgery was significantly highly preferred in CAS patients (CAS group) than the CEA patients (CEA group), and the difference was statistically significant (relative ratio (RR)=1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.380–2.401, P <0.0001). But the incidence of death in the two groups is not showed and is not statistically significant after 30 days (RR=1.52, 95% CI: 0.82–2.82, P=0.18). The rate of cranial nerve injury in the CAS group is lower than the CEA group (RR=0.14, 95% CI: 0.05–0.43, P=0.0005). The incidence of CAS patients with myocardial infarction is lower than the CEA group after 30 days, but statistically meaningless (RR=0.22, 95% CI: 0.05–1.02, P=0.05). The stroke or death in CAS patients were higher than the CEA group after 1 year of treatment (RR=2.58, 95% CI: 1.03–6.48, P=0.04).

Conclusions  Compared to CAS, carotid endarterectomy is still the preferred treatment methodology of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Future meta-analyses should then be performed in long-term follow-up to support this treatment recommendation.

     

脑保护装置下的颈动脉狭窄支架成形术

目的评价脑保护装置下的颈动脉狭窄支架成形术的有效性和安全性。方法22例患者在颈动脉狭窄支架成形术中联合使用了脑保护装置，首先将脑保护装置（过滤伞）小心通过狭窄部位放置于颈动脉狭窄的远端并释放，然后再行颈动脉狭窄支架成形术，观察手术期缺血性脑血管病事件及其他并发症。结果22例脑保护装置及支架均成功实施，支架释放前颈动脉的平均狭窄率为（84±9）％，支架成形术后的平均狭窄率降为（21±8）％（P〈0．01），手术期无缺血性脑血管病事件发生。结论脑保护装置能有效提高颈动脉狭窄支架成形术的安全性。     

颈动脉支架置入术治疗颈动脉狭窄的相关并发症观察

目的观察颈动脉支架置入术（CAS）治疗颈动脉狭窄的相关并发症。方法选择广西医科大学第一附属医院2005年1月～2011年12月收治的颈动脉狭窄患者38例,均行CAS治疗;分析CAS的相关并发症。结果手术成功率为100％,术后残余狭窄率〈10％;术中发生高灌注综合征5例,颈动脉窦综合征2例,血管痉挛2例,栓子脱落1例,经积极治疗均好转。2例患者术后1年随访发现轻度再狭窄。结论掌握并发症的发病原因及临床表现并予以正确的处理,可预防和降低并发症的发生。     

高危颈动脉狭窄的球囊扩张和支架植入术治疗

目的:探讨用球囊扩张和支架植入术(Carotid angioplasty and stenting,CAS)治疗高危颈动脉狭窄患者的疗效和并发症。方法:从2003年3月到2006年4月对8例高危的颈动脉狭窄患者进行CAS治疗,观察CAS的疗效和并发症。结果:对8例症状性颈动脉狭窄患者的9根颈动脉进行了CAS治疗。CAS术后9根颈动脉的平均狭窄率从75.4%显著减少到28.8%(P<0.001,配对t检验)。所有的患者都使用了脑保护装置。全部使用自膨式支架,其中大部分是Precise镍钛合金支架(77.8%)。术中5例患者发生了一过性心率减慢和血压下降。经过21.5±14.2(4~41)月的随访,所有患者没有再发卒中,除1例患者仍有轻度头晕外,其余患者头晕、眩晕症状全部消失。6例(75%)患者通过颈动脉超声和/或CTA随访发现支架通畅,无再狭窄。结论:采用脑保护装置的CAS是治疗高危颈动脉狭窄的安全可行的方法,但其疗效和安全性需要作进一步观察。     

Internal carotid artery flow arrest/reversal cerebral protection techniques

We report on the progress of an ongoing prospective non-randomized trial evaluating carotid artery stenting (CAS) with adjuvant cerebral protection in patients who are considered high risk for surgery. The 62 patients (34M/28F) in this study underwent CAS with interruption or reversal of flow in the internal carotid artery to protect the brain from embolization of particulate debris that may otherwise egress to the brain resulting in a stroke. Twenty-seven patients (44%) had restenotic lesions after remote carotid endarterectomy and 11 (18%) had previous radical neck surgery with external beam radiation therapy for cancer. The average length of hospital stay was 1.3 +/- 0.7 days. There were no strokes or transient ischemic attacks during the procedure or follow-up. Intolerance to ICA flow arrest or reversal was noted in five patients, but the procedures were completed in stages without sequella. No significant change in NIH scale was reported based on independent neurology evaluation when baseline average scores (0.72 +/- 1.1) were compared to follow-up at 30 days (0.50 +/- .05) P > 0.05. The positive outcome in this small study suggests that CAS may be a safe alternative to CEA in high-risk patients.