颈动脉内膜剥脱术抑或颈动脉支架术: 颈动脉狭窄手术治疗的金标准之争

脑卒中是当今第三大致死病因,是成年人致残的首要原因。颈动脉狭窄是导致缺血性卒中事件发生的最常见原因。20世纪80～90年代已有多个随机对照试验证实颈动脉内膜剥脱术相比于内科药物治疗对于预防卒中具有明显优势。近年来,随着介入技术和器材的不断进步,血管腔内介入治疗愈发成熟,其安全性及有效性正在为一些大规模的临床随机对照试验所证实,腔内介入治疗颈动脉狭窄正在挑战着外科内膜剥脱术的＂金标准＂地位。     

In-hospital outcomes alone underestimate rates of 30-day major adverse events after carotid artery stenting

ObjectiveOutcome studies using databases collecting only hospital discharge data underestimate morbidity and mortality because of failure to capture postdischarge events. The proportion of postdischarge major adverse events is well characterized in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) but has yet to be characterized after carotid artery stenting (CAS).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing CAS from 2011 to 2017 using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure targeted database to evaluate rates of 30-day major adverse events, stratified by in-hospital and postdischarge occurrences. The primary outcome was 30-day stroke/death. Multivariable analysis using purposeful selection was used to identify independent factors associated with in-hospital, postdischarge, and 30-day stroke/death events.ResultsOf the 899 patients undergoing CAS, reporting of in-hospital outcomes alone would yield a stroke/death rate of 2.7%, substantially underestimating the 30-day stroke/death rate of 4.0%. In fact, 35% of stroke/deaths, 27% of strokes, 73% of deaths, 35% of cardiac events, and 35% of stroke/death/cardiac events occurred after discharge. More postdischarge stroke/death events occurred after treatment of symptomatic compared with asymptomatic patients (47% vs 27%; P < .001). During this same study period, the 30-day stroke/death rate after CEA was 2.6%, with similar proportions of postdischarge strokes (28% vs 27%; P = .51) compared with CAS but lower proportions of postdischarge deaths (55% vs 73%; P < .001). After CAS, patients experiencing postdischarge stroke/death events had a shorter postoperative length of stay compared with patients with in-hospital stroke/death (1 [1-2] vs 5 [3-10] days; P < .001). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was independently associated with postdischarge stroke/death (odds ratio [OR], 4.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-16; P = .02) after CAS. Nonwhite ethnicity was independently associated with overall 30-day stroke/death (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.4-7.9; P < .01), whereas statin use was associated with not having stroke/death within 30 days (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-1.0; P = .049).ConclusionsMore than one-quarter of perioperative strokes occur following discharge after both CAS and CEA. A higher proportion of postdischarge deaths occur after CAS in symptomatic patients, which may reflect treatment of a population of higher risk patients. Further investigation is needed to elucidate the cause of postdischarge stroke to develop methods to reduce these complications.     

Intermediate follow-up of carotid artery stent placement

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stent placement (CAS) is becoming more popular among various specialties for the treatment of primary and recurrent carotid artery disease. The morbidity associated with this procedure is improving but the intermediate- and long-term follow-up remains unknown. We report our restenosis rates and follow-up associated with CAS. METHODS: Thirty-one interventions on 29 patients from May 1998 to January 2002 were reviewed. All patients have undergone serial follow-up using Doppler ultrasound at 3 and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. Ten interventions (32%) were performed on patients with recurrent carotid artery disease and 21 (68%) on patients with primary disease. RESULTS: Five periprocedural complications occurred (transient ischemic attack, n = 3; major stroke, n = 1; immediate intrastent restenosis requiring lysis, n = 1) for a total immediate complication rate of 16%. No deaths occurred. Follow-up was achieved in all 29 patients (mean 28 months; range 20 to 46). Twenty-seven patients (29 vessels; 94%) remain asymptomatic with less than 50% stenosis. Two vessels (6%) have been found to have a critical restenosis of greater than 90%. Both patients were symptomatic from their recurrence (transient ischemic attack, n = 1; acute stroke, n = 1). Cumulative major stroke and death rate including all follow-up was 6%. CONCLUSIONS: CAS can be performed with an acceptable stroke/death rate (3%) in a properly selected patient population. In our small series of patients, the restenosis rate at a mean of 28 months after CAS is 6%.     

冠心病合并颈动脉狭窄的围术期处理

背景 冠心病(coronary artery bypass grafting,CABG)合并颈动脉狭窄者临床上并不少见.如何正确处理CABG患者并存颈动脉狭窄的问题应引起重视.目的 为了探索CABG患者并存颈动脉狭窄的最佳处理方法,此文将CABG患者并存颈动脉狭窄的外科治疗及麻醉处理进行了分析汇总.内窖对于合并颈动脉狭...     

Impact of residual stenosis on clinical outcomes when performing carotid artery stenting without postdilation

ObjectiveMany centers consider postdilation if the final angiography after carotid artery stenting (CAS) shows residual stenosis of >30% to 40%. Postdilation has been demonstrated to potentially increase the risk of developing neurologic events. This study aimed to investigate the safety of CAS without postdilation regardless of the degree of residual stenosis.MethodsWe retrospectively investigated 191 patients who underwent transfemoral CAS without postdilation intendedly. All cases underwent mild predilation and self-expanding stent implantation. We divided the patients into a residual stenosis of ≥40% group (n = 69 [36.1%]) and a residual stenosis of <40% group (n = 122 [63.9%]) according to their final angiography. We compared the procedural (within 30 days after CAS) and nonprocedural (afterward) adverse cardiovascular events and in-stent restenosis between the two groups. We also investigated the incidence of perioperative hemodynamic depression between the groups and the changes in residual stenosis over the follow-up time.ResultsPatients in the residual stenosis of ≥40% group had a higher preoperative stenosis rate and a greater proportion of severely calcified lesions than those in the <40% group. There was one procedural cardiac death (0.5%), five strokes (2.6%), and four myocardial infarctions (2.1%). A total of 2.9% had stroke or death procedurally in the residual stenosis of ≥40% group and 3.2% in the residual stenosis of <40% group (P > .950). The median nonprocedural follow-up time was 22 months, with a total of six deaths and four strokes. The cumulative 2-year death or stroke rate was 6.2%, with 5.9% in the residual stenosis of ≥40% group versus 6.7% in the residual stenosis of <40% group (P = .507). There were two cases of in-stent restenosis in the residual stenosis of ≥40% group and three in the residual stenosis of <40% group (P = .927). The difference in the peak systolic velocity of the target lesion between groups at 3 months after CAS was no longer present, and residual stenosis stabilized at 10% to 20% at 6 months in both groups. The patients showed an association between increasing hemodynamic depression incidence and residual stenosis in a significantly graded response (P = .021).ConclusionsResidual stenosis after carotid stenting without postdilation is not associated with a risk of postoperative adverse events. This study provides evidence for the feasibility of a no postdilation strategy for CAS.     

Asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis undergoing staged carotid artery stent and coronary artery bypass grafting: decisive role of brain single photon emission computed tomography

Effort angina of a 70-year-old man was diagnosed as due to triple coronary vessel disease, and he was scheduled to undergo coronary artery bypass surgery. Preoperative carotid duplex scan revealed more than 75% stenosis of the right internal carotid artery, which was functionally proven to be significantly ischemic on brain single photon emission computed tomography. Although he was neurologically asymptomatic, we chose staged surgery for fear of stroke during coronary artery bypass surgery. He had successful carotid artery stenting first by neurosurgeons; then, 2 months later he underwent uneventful coronary artery bypass surgery. This experience prompted us to report the case.     

颈动脉内膜切除术治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄

目的:回顾性总结应用颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄的早期效果和经验。方法:对82例(男66例,女16例,年龄48～84岁,平均68.6岁)症状性颈动脉狭窄病人行CEA。全组均经颈部血管多普勒超声和数字减影血管造影术(DSA)确诊颈动脉粥样斑块形成、颈动脉狭窄。手术采用气管内插管全身麻醉39例,颈丛麻醉43例。术中放置动脉临时转流管56例,其中全麻应用39例,颈丛麻醉17例。结果:全组无死亡病例,脑缺血症状明显改善者65例,症状好转者14例,术后并发脑梗死2例,颈动脉内血栓形成1例。结论:CEA是治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄的有效方法。     

Eversion endarterectomy of the internal carotid artery combined with open endarterectomy of the common carotid artery

The author presents a technique for endarterectomy and reconstruction of the carotid bifurcation in difficult cases when the plaque extends high into the internal carotid artery. The technique combines the aspects of the 2 most commonly performed procedures: carotid endarterectomy after a longitudinal arteriotomy extending from the common carotid artery into the internal carotid artery and eversion endarterectomy in which the plaque is removed from the internal carotid artery sectioned from the common carotid artery and everted. The author suggests applying this technique selectively in patients in whom the atherosclerotic plaque extends very high into the internal carotid artery. The technique offers the advantages of removing the plaque into the common carotid artery under direct vision and leaving the original dimensions and geometry of the internal carotid artery, theoretically decreasing the probability of early thrombosis and recurrent carotid disease. For routine cases, the author prefers and recommends standard carotid bifurcation endarterectomy with patch closure when the size of the arteries is reduced like in women and selected male patients.     

Impact of external carotid artery occlusion at declamping of the external and common carotid arteries during carotid endarterectomy on development of new postoperative ischemic cerebral lesions

Objective

The external carotid artery (ECA) is inadvertently occluded during carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The importance of ECA occlusion has been emphasized as a loss of extracranial to intracranial collaterals, a source of chronic embolization, or a site for extended thrombosis during wound closure. This study aimed to determine whether ECA occlusion that inadvertently developed during endarterectomy and that was eventually detected using blood flow measurement of the ECA after declamping of all carotid arteries is a risk factor for development of new postoperative ischemic lesions at declamping of the ECA and common carotid artery (CCA) while clamping the internal carotid artery (ICA). This study also aimed to determine whether intraoperative transcranial Doppler (TCD) monitoring predicts the risk for development of such lesions.

血管内支架置入术解除颈动脉狭窄对认知功能影响的对照研究

目的研究血管内支架置入术解除颈动脉狭窄对患者认知功能的影响。方法选择2012年1月～2013年3月江门市中心医院神经内科一区收治的颈动脉狭窄患者共36例作为临床研究对象,根据患者的意愿纳入手术组和对照组。其中手术组患者20例,使用血管内支架置入手术,对照组患者16例,使用常规药物治疗。分别在入院时和入院后3、6个月采用蒙特利尔认知估量表（MoCA）、简易精神评估量表（MMSE）评价患者的认知功能。结果手术组患者在入院后3个月和6个月的MoCA、MMSE评分均优于对照组患者,差异有统计学意义。结论与单纯药物治疗比较,颈动脉支架植入术能更有效改善颈动脉狭窄患者的认知功能障碍。     

A meta-analysis of the effect of stent design on clinical and radiologic outcomes of carotid artery stenting

ObjectiveProcedural characteristics, including stent design, may influence the outcome of carotid artery stenting (CAS). A thorough comparison of the effect of stent design on outcome of CAS is thus warranted to allow for optimal evidence-based clinical decision making. This study sought to evaluate the effect of stent design on clinical and radiologic outcomes of CAS.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases in May 2018. Included were articles reporting on the occurrence of clinical short- and intermediate-term major adverse events (MAEs; any stroke or death) or radiologic adverse events (new ischemic lesions on postprocedural magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging [MR-DWI], restenosis, or stent fracture) in different stent designs used to treat carotid artery stenosis. Random effects models were used to calculate combined overall effect sizes. Metaregression was performed to identify the effect of specific stents on MAE rates.ResultsFrom 2654 unique identified articles, two randomized, controlled trials and 66 cohort studies were eligible for analysis (including 46,728 procedures). Short-term clinical MAE rates were similar for patients treated with open cell vs closed cell or hybrid stents. Use of an Acculink stent was associated with a higher risk of short-term MAE compared with a Wallstent (risk ratio [RR], 1.51; P = .03), as was true for use of Precise stent vs Xact stent (RR, 1.55; P < .001). Intermediate-term clinical MAE rates were similar for open vs closed cell stents. Use of open cell stents predisposed to a 25% higher chance (RR, 1.25; P = .03) of developing postprocedural new ischemic lesions on MR-DWI. No differences were observed in the incidence of restenosis, stent fracture, or intraprocedural hemodynamic depression with respect to different stent design.ConclusionsStent design is not associated with short- or intermediate-term clinical MAE rates in patients undergoing CAS. Furthermore, the division in open and closed cell stent design might conceal true differences in single stent efficacy. Nevertheless, open cell stenting resulted in a significantly higher number of subclinical postprocedural new ischemic lesions detected on MR-DWI compared with closed cell stenting. An individualized patient data meta-analysis, including future studies with prospective homogenous study design, is required to adequately correct for known risk factors and to provide definite conclusions with respect to carotid stent design for specific subgroups.     

Misconceptions regarding the adequacy of best medical intervention alone for asymptomatic carotid stenosis

BackgroundMedical intervention (risk factor identification, lifestyle coaching, and medication) for stroke prevention has improved significantly. It is likely that no more than 5.5% of persons with advanced asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) will now benefit from a carotid procedure during their lifetime. However, some question the adequacy of medical intervention alone for such persons and propose using markers of high stroke risk to intervene with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and/or carotid angioplasty/stenting (CAS). Our aim was to examine the scientific validity and implications of this proposal.MethodsWe reviewed the evidence for using medical intervention alone or with additional CEA or CAS in persons with ACS. We also reviewed the evidence regarding the validity of using commonly cited makers of high stroke risk to select such persons for CEA or CAS, including markers proposed by the European Society for Vascular Surgery in 2017.ResultsRandomized trials of medical intervention alone versus additional CEA showed a definite statistically significant CEA stroke prevention benefit for ACS only for selected average surgical risk men aged less than 75 to 80 years with 60% or greater stenosis using the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria. However, the most recent measurements of stroke rate with ACS using medical intervention alone are overall lower than for those who had CEA or CAS in randomized trials. Randomized trials of CEA versus CAS in persons with ACS were underpowered. However, the trend was for higher stroke and death rates with CAS. There are no randomized trial results related to comparing current optimal medical intervention with CEA or CAS. Commonly cited markers of high stroke risk in relation to ACS lack specificity, have not been assessed in conjunction with current optimal medical intervention, and have not been shown in randomized trials to identify those who benefit from a carotid procedure in addition to current optimal medical intervention.ConclusionsMedical intervention has an established role in the current routine management of persons with ACS. Stroke risk stratification studies using current optimal medical intervention alone are the highest research priority for identifying persons likely to benefit from adding a carotid procedure.     

Females are less likely to receive best medical therapy for stroke prevention before and after carotid revascularization than males

BackgroundCurrent professional guidelines recommend best medical therapy (BMT) with statin agents and antiplatelet therapy for primary and secondary stroke prevention in patients with carotid artery stenosis. We aimed to assess the association of patient sex with preoperative BMT in patients undergoing carotid revascularization.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of Vascular Quality Initiative patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting between January 2003 and February 2022. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association of patient sex with preoperative BMT after adjusting for sociodemographic, comorbidity, and disease severity characteristics. In-hospital outcomes were assessed by sex and preoperative BMT status.ResultsOf 214,008 patients who underwent carotid revascularization, 38.7% (n = 82,855) were female and 61.3% (n = 131,153) were male. Overall, 77.2% (n = 63,922) of females were on preoperative BMT, compared with 80.4% (n = 105,375) of males (P < .001). After adjusting for baseline differences, females had 11% lower odds of being on BMT compared with males (adjusted odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.91). Postoperatively, females had 18% lower odds of being prescribed BMT than males (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.84). In-hospital stroke (1.20% vs 1.51%), death (0.37% vs 0.66%), and stroke/death (1.46% vs 1.98%) were all significantly lower for patients on BMT (all P < .001).ConclusionsThere is a significant discrepancy in the proportion of females versus males receiving preoperative BMT for stroke prevention before carotid artery revascularization. In-hospital outcomes are worse in patients without BMT, highlighting the importance of raising awareness and implementing targeted interventions to improve preoperative adherence to stroke prevention guidelines.     

双侧颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄的处理策略

目的:探讨双侧颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者的手术适应证、时机和策略.方法:1987年2月至2007年12月共收治74例双侧颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者,其中34例患者症状限于一侧,均施行了一侧颈动脉内膜切除(CEA),其中8例对侧因狭窄>70%或粥样硬化斑块不稳定而行CEA或支架成形(CAS).38例双侧均有症状,15例双侧先后施行CEA;3例一侧行CEA,对侧行CAS;20例仅行单侧CEA.另外2例双侧无症状,均因狭窄>70%而行单侧CEA,其中1例还行对侧CAS.结果:本组74例患者共行93侧CEA,68例术后顺利,2例神经功能障碍加重,2例出现心肌缺血,1例脑出血,1例声音嘶哑.67例患者平均随访4.9年,63例无与术侧颈动脉相关的脑缺血事件发生.结论:颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者只要指征明确,无论对侧颈动脉正常、狭窄甚至闭塞,均应施行CEA.双侧狭窄患者的治疗时机和策略因人而异.CEA术中主要依据电生理监测结果决定是否采用转流.     

脑保护下的颈动脉狭窄内支架治疗

目的 评价经皮血管内支架成形术联合应用颈动脉滤器对颈动脉狭窄的治疗效果。方法12例有临床症状的颅外颈动脉狭窄患者接受血管内支架植入治疗，术中同时使用颈动脉滤器进行脑保护，并对颈动脉滤器所回收的物质进行病理学分析。结果12例患者支架及滤器均成功植入，滤器均成功回收。回收物质为微小血栓颗粒、泡沫细胞、胆固醇颗粒。结论经皮血管内支架成形术联合应用颈动脉滤器，可有效缓解颈动脉狭窄所致的血流障碍，预防术中脱落的微小栓子进入脑内。     

Association between the choice of anesthesia and in-hospital outcomes after carotid artery stenting

ObjectiveSeveral prior studies have shown lower risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy. This is likely because the majority of endarterectomies are performed under general anesthesia (GA), whereas CAS is mainly performed under local anesthesia (LA). Performing CAS under GA may reverse its minimally invasive benefits. The aim of this study was to compare the safety profile of CAS-GA with that of CAS-LA.MethodsA retrospective analysis of the Vascular Quality Initiative database from 2005 to 2017 was performed. Primary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of in-hospital death and MI, and postoperative neurologic events. Multivariable logistic models, and coarsened exact matching were used to evaluate the association between the primary outcomes and anesthesia technique.ResultsOf 12,919 CAS cases performed, 2024 (15.7%) were under GA. Comparing CAS-GA with CAS-LA in the overall cohort, CAS-GA had significantly higher crude rates of in-hospital mortality (2.1% vs 0.5%), MI (1.3% vs 0.7%), composite MACE (3.1% vs 1.2%), and ipsilateral stroke (2.3% vs 1.6%). Patients undergoing CAS-GA also had higher rates of dysrhythmia (3.0% vs 2.2%), acute congestive heart failure (1.6% vs 0.7%) and perioperative hypertension (13.2% vs 9.4%), and were more likely to have a length of hospital stay of more than 4 days (prolonged length of stay) (17.6% vs 8.5%) compared with those undergoing CAS-LA. On multivariable analysis, CAS-GA had a 2.3 times higher odds of in-hospital mortality compared with CAS-LA (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.26-5.03), a 1.9 times the odds of MACE (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.15-3.03), and a 2.3 times the odds of acute congestive heart failure (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.26-4.15; all P < .05). In addition, these patients had a 43% higher odds of developing perioperative hypertension (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.09-1.87; P = .01) and almost 2 times the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.41-2.35; P < .001). The adjusted odds of stroke, dysrhythmia and reperfusion syndrome were not significantly different between the two groups. Additional analysis using coarsened exact matching showed similar results.ConclusionsIn addition to the established increase risk of perioperative stroke/death with CAS compared with carotid endarterectomy, performing it under GA seems to be associated with increased cardiac complications, length of stay, and consequently hospitalization costs. Pending future data from prospective, randomized, controlled trials to validate our findings, there is evidence to suggest that it may be better to perform CAS under LA, especially in medically high-risk patients.     

Results of carotid angioplasty and stenting are equivalent for critical versus high-grade lesions in patients deemed high risk for carotid endarterectomy

Background

To examine outcomes of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) in patients with critical carotid stenosis who are deemed high risk for carotid endarterectomy.

Methods

Medical records were retrospectively analyzed for patients undergoing CAS between September 2002 and March 2011 at a single institution. Patients were classified as having either critical (≥90%) or high-grade (70%–89%) carotid stenosis based on angiography. The primary composite end point was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from any cause during the periprocedural period or any ipsilateral stroke during the follow-up period.

Results

A total of 245 patients underwent 257 CAS procedures during the study period. Fifty-one percentage (n = 130) of cases involved critical stenosis (66.2% male; mean age, 71 ± 10 y), with the remaining group (n = 127) involving high-grade stenosis (67.7% male; mean age, 71 ± 9 y). Symptomatic carotid disease was present in 25% of the critical stenosis and 31% of the high-grade stenosis groups (P = 0.33). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was more commonly found in the high-grade stenosis group (20% versus 8%, P = 0.01). No difference was observed between the groups relative to other baseline demographic characteristics, presence of contralateral carotid occlusion, stent diameter or length, maximum balloon diameter or length, use of embolic protection device, or procedural duration. Technical success was achieved in all cases. There was no difference in the need to predilate before the introduction of the filter or stent based on the degree of stenosis. We found no difference in the primary composite end point between the high-grade or critical stenosis groups (7.1% versus 7.7%, P = 0.74), or there were no differences between the individual components of the composite end point. Mid-term survival was similar between the two groups at a mean follow-up period of 2.4 y.

Conclusions

Despite concerns regarding the potential for increased neurologic complications, our data demonstrate that patients with high-grade and critical stenosis are able to safely undergo CAS and achieve similar periprocedural outcomes and mid-term prognosis.     

应用自膨式支架置入治疗颈动脉狭窄

目的　探索颈动脉狭窄的治疗方法。　方法　应用 14枚自膨式支架血管内置入治疗 9例有症状颈动脉狭窄患者的 10处病变 ,狭窄程度 70 % -95 %。　结果　治疗后短暂性脑缺血发作 (TIA)消失 ,残余狭窄均 <5 0 %。无症状脑梗塞 1例。无死亡。　结论　应用自膨式支架血管内置入是治疗颈动脉狭窄是一种安全有效的方法     

颈动脉内膜剥除术及支架成形术治疗颈动脉狭窄的相关研究

目的：探讨颈动脉内膜切除术及颈动脉支架成形术在治疗颈动脉狭窄中的应用，并对此两种术式的适应证进行讨论。方法：根据狭窄的部位和程度对121例颅外颈动脉狭窄病人采取不同的手术方法；其中104例为颈动脉内膜切除术．17例为颈动脉支架成形术。分析其治疗结果及并发症发生的原因。结果：手术均获成功，但颈动脉内膜切除术术后严重并发症的发生率较支架成形术为低。结论：颈动脉内膜切除术仍然是治疗颅外颈动脉狭窄的主要方法．而颈动脉支架成形术则可应用于颈动脉内膜切除术无法到达的狭窄部位。