颅外段颈动脉狭窄的治疗策略

目的：探讨颅外段颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄的治疗方法。方法回顾性分析上海中山医院血管外科2012年1～6月51例颅外段颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者的临床资料,16例行颈动脉内膜剥脱术（carotid endarterectomy,CEA）,35例行颈动脉支架置入术（ carotid artery stenting ,CAS）。结果51例手术均获成功,1例CAS术后即刻脑卒中,1例CEA术后第3天短暂性脑缺血发作（transient ischemic attack,TIA）,1例CAS术后颈动脉窦压迫。全组术后随访9～15个月,平均13．6月,复查颈动脉B超,无严重再狭窄。结论根据颅外段颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者的相关医学资料,对于有下列情况之一的患者我们倾向于行CEA：①6个月内1次或多次TIA,且颈动脉狭窄度≥70％;②6个月内1次或多次轻度非致残性卒中发作,症状或体征持续超过24小时且颈动脉狭窄度≥70％;③对于经颈部血管CTA和颈动脉全脑血管造影发现的颈动脉狭窄段≥2 cm。对于有下列情况之一的患者我们倾向于行CAS：①无症状性颈动脉狭窄度≥70％;②有症状性狭窄度范围50％～69％;③无症状性颈动脉狭窄度＜70％,但血管造影或其他检查提示狭窄病变处于不稳定状态。     

Overview of evidence on risk factors and early management of acute carotid stent thrombosis during the last two decades

Objective

Acute carotid stent thrombosis (ACST) occurring in the first hours after the procedure is an exceedingly rare complication of carotid artery stenting, but it is potentially devastating. This review aimed to evaluate current literature, identifying all reported cases during the last two decades, with the final purpose of reporting predictive factors and early management.

高危颈动脉狭窄患者内膜剥脱术和支架术的对比分析

目的对比颈动脉内膜剥脱术（carotid endarterectomy,CEA）与颈动脉支架置入术（carotid artery stenting,CAS）在治疗高危颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄中的作用。方法对58例颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者进行回顾性对照研究。其中32例为CEA组;26例为CAS组。术后30d、6个月、1年均进行颈部B超、CTA复查或DSA和神经系统检查。初级观察终点设定为术后30d内发生死亡、卒中事件、心血管不良事件,或随访6个月内的死亡或同侧卒中事件;次级观察终点为与CEA或CAS相关的并发症,或1年内的重度再狭窄。比较2组术后治疗的效果。结果CEA组有3例达到初级观察终点,发生率为9.4%;CAS组有4例达到初级观察点,累积发生率为15.4%（χ2=0.086,P=0.769）。CEA组有4例达到次级观察终点,发生率为12.5%;CAS组有4例达到次级观察终点,发生率为15.4%（χ2=0.000,P=1.000）。结论CAS在治疗高危颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄时,在安全性和有效性方面与CEA是相同的。     

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...     

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。     

Risk factors associated with microembolization after carotid intervention

BackgroundMicroembolization after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been documented and may confer risk for neurocognitive impairment. Patients undergoing stenting are known to be at higher risk for microembolization. In this prospective cohort study, we compare the microembolization rates for patients undergoing CAS and CEA and perioperative characteristics that may be associated with microembolization.MethodsPatients undergoing CAS and CEA were prospectively recruited under local institutional review board approval from an academic medical center. All patients also received 3T brain magnetic resonance imaging with a diffusion-weighted imaging sequence preoperatively and within 24 hours postoperatively to identify procedure-related new embolic lesions. Preoperative, postoperative, procedural factors, and plaque characteristics were collected. Factors were tested for statistical significance with logistic regression.ResultsA total of 202 patients were enrolled in the study. There were 107 patients who underwent CAS and 95 underwent CEA. Patients undergoing CAS were more likely to have microemboli than patients undergoing CEA (78% vs 27%; P < .0001). For patients undergoing CAS, patency of the external carotid artery (odds ratio [OR], 11.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-117.6; P = .04), lesion calcification (OR, 5.68; 95% CI, 1.12-28.79; P = .04), and lesion length (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.08-1.01; P = .05) were all found to be independent risk factors for perioperative embolization. These factors did not confer increased risk to patients undergoing CEA.ConclusionsPatients undergoing CAS are at higher risk for perioperative embolization. The risk for perioperative embolization is related to the length of the lesion and calcification. Identifying the preoperative risk factors may help to guide patient selection and, thereby, reduce embolization-related neurocognitive impairment.     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术及颈动脉支架置入术治疗颅外颈动脉硬化狭窄术后早期并发症比较

目的比较颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)及颈动脉支架置入术(carotid stenting,CAS)治疗颅外颈动脉硬化狭窄后早期并发症发生情况,为临床治疗方法的选择提供理论依据。方法 2005年1月-2007年12月,分别采用CEA(CEA组,36例)和CAS(CAS组,27例)治疗63例颅外颈动脉狭窄患者。男42例,女21例;年龄52～79岁,平均67.5岁。左侧28例,右侧35例。颈动脉狭窄度为60%～95%,平均79%。主要临床症状为中风和短暂性脑缺血发作。头颅CT检查:24例有陈旧性脑梗死(cerebral infarction,CI),22例见多发性腔隙性CI,余17例未见明显异常。分析两种术式治疗后7 d内脑部、心血管及局部并发症发生情况。结果术后7 d内CEA组3例(8.3%)出现脑部并发症,2例(5.6%)出现心血管并发症,5例(13.9%)出现局部并发症;CAS组8例(29.6%)出现脑部并发症,1例(3.7%)出现心血管并发症,3例(11.1%)出现局部并发症;CAS组患者脑部并发症发生率明显高于CEA组,差异有统计学意义(χ2=4.855,P=0.028);但两组心血管、局部并发症发生率以及总并发症发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论对于颅外颈动脉硬化狭窄患者,CEA是首选治疗方式。     

老年患者行左侧颈动脉-锁骨下动脉旁路术的麻醉管理1例

锁骨下动脉狭窄是一种较常见的阻塞性颅外脑血管病变,患者常出现椎-基底动脉窃血,从而产生上肢缺血症状和脑缺血症状等,围手术期管理难度较大。此例患者高龄合并高血压、左侧颈内动脉闭塞,于全麻下行左侧颈动脉-锁骨下动脉旁路术（carotid subclavian bypass, CSB）,手术麻醉平稳、顺利,患者治愈出院。总结...     

Carotid body tumor: considerations on a case with obliteration of the internal carotid artery

Summary The authors report a case of carotid body tumor with some notable characteristics: an exceptional pain syndrome, an unusually large size, aspects which suggest an angiodystrophic situation, and the total obliteration of the internal carotid artery. They discuss the different aspects of the case and the treatment chosen — preoperative embolization and complete surgical excision.Presented at the VIIIth Annual Meeting of the Portuguese Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (September 1979)     

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。     

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.     

颈动脉支架内再狭窄的早期随访结果分析

目的分析颈动脉支架成形术(CAS)后发生再狭窄的早期随访结果,为临床治疗和预防术后支架内再狭窄(ISRS)提供依据。方法2003年1月至2005年9月在我院行CAS治疗的患者,分别于术后1、3、5、12和24个月行彩色多普勒超声随访,分析术前及术中诸多高危因素对术后ISRS发生的影响。结果共计37例患者接受了随访,其中,男性占91.9%(34/37),女性占8.1%(3/37);平均年龄(70.5±5.9)岁;平均随访(12.2±7.7)个月。术后发生ISRS16例(43.2%),再狭窄程度≥50%者仅占2.7%(1/37);其余均为30%~50%的轻度狭窄;3例女性患者均发生轻度狭窄。术后发生ISRS与患者性别、术中颈动脉球囊后扩以及是否合并其他外周血管动脉粥样硬化有关。结论CAS术后重度ISRS发生率较低;女性患者CAS术后可能更容易发生ISRS;术中球囊后扩对预防再狭窄可能有一定的作用;颈动脉狭窄的患者应同时加强对动脉粥样硬化的治疗。     

Blunt carotid artery injury after minor facial trauma

A healthy young man presented three days after suffering a punch to the face resulting in minimally displaced mandibular fractures. History revealed an episode of anterograde amnesia and a delayed episode of dysphonia. Apart from the fractured mandible, the physical examination was otherwise noncontributory. Imaging revealed severe luminal narrowing of the left cervical internal carotid artery distal to the carotid bifurcation, consistent with carotid dissection; and two focal hypodensities in the left frontal and parietal cortices, highly suggestive of acute secondary embolic infarcts. The patient was treated with systemic anticoagulation for three months and experienced no further neurological symptoms. His mandibular fractures, treated conservatively, healed without any complications.Blunt carotid artery injuries are uncommon and diverse. Neurological symptoms may develop in a delayed fashion, thus, a high index of suspicion based on knowledge of the injury mechanisms and patterns of associated injuries may enable earlier diagnosis and treatment. Angiographic imaging is essential for the diagnosis and classification of injury characteristics (eg, type, location, etc). Treatment must be considered on an individual patient basis depending on the presentation, grade and morphology of the lesion. Although no level I clinical trials exist on the topic, anticoagulation seems to be the treatment of choice in most cases and surgical intervention is not commonly indicated. Carotid artery dissection without complete thrombosis may be effectively treated with systemic anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy in the majority of cases.     

Past,Present and Future of Surgical Training in Belgium

The objective of the authors is to assess the natural history of carotid artery disease and the role of carotid intervention in preventing ipsilateral stroke. The development of endovascular techniques for correction of carotid artery stenoses made this less invasive technique very popular, with an inherent risk of unregulated overuse by a variety of medical specialists, who are not always well informed on the natural history of carotid artery disease. It re-opened the discussion on the value of carotid endarterectomy for stroke prophylaxis. This ongoing debate offers the opportunity to distil evidence-based guidelines for the management of extracranial carotid artery stenoses.

In recent papers, some authors expressed doubts on the validity and general applicability of the results of the pivotal randomised trials of carotid endarterectomy. The excellent results in terms of operative outcome and long term stroke prevention would, according to certain comments, not be attainable in routine practice.

Another criticism of carotid endarterectomy is its higher operative morbidity in terms of cranial nerve lesions and myocardial infarctions, compared to endovascular procedures. This consideration is, for some authors, the main reason to espouse carotid artery stenting as a better alternative to carotid endarterectomy. Any evidence supporting this point of view is missing. The supposed equivalence or non-inferiority of carotid artery stenting is purely speculative. The aim of this review paper is to summarize the crude data of carotid surgery trials. The authors aim to answer four questions. For which lesions is carotid endarterectomy most beneficial ? Are the results of randomised carotid surgery trials biased by the selection of patients ? Is operative morbidity, other than stroke, under-estimated ? Is carotid artery stenting safe and efficacious ?

An in-depth review with a critical analysis is made of recently published and on-going trials, comparing carotid surgery with percutaneous carotid angioplasty.     

颈动脉血管重建术后过度灌注及过度灌注综合征

背景 过度灌注综合征(hyperperfusion syndrome,CHS)是颈动脉血管重建术后少见而又严重的并发症,若未及时发现将会导致术后患者颅内出血甚至死亡. 目的 对这一并发症的全面认识将有助于临床医生及时发现患者病情并尽早干预从而减少其发病率和死亡率. 内容 从病理生理机制、临床表现、危险因素、诊断、评估过度灌注方法及治疗等方面对这一术后并发症进行综述. 趋向 目前对这一并发症的机制还不明确,也缺乏贴合临床的动物模型,在今后的研究中希望可以建立相关的动物模型从而对其发病机制进行深入研究,为临床防治CHS提供新的治疗依据.     

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%.     

Statin therapy is associated with improved perioperative outcomes and long-term mortality following carotid revascularization in the Vascular Quality Initiative

ObjectiveStatin therapy is the standard of care for patients with carotid artery stenosis given its proven cardiovascular benefits. However, the impact of statin therapy on outcomes in patients undergoing carotid revascularization in the Vascular Quality Initiative has not yet been evaluated. Therefore, our aim was to investigate the association of statin therapy with outcomes following carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR).MethodsWe identified all patients who underwent CEA, tfCAS, or TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from January 2016 to September 2021. To compare outcomes, we stratified patients by procedure type and created 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who received no preoperative statin therapy (within 36 hours of procedure) versus those who received preoperative statin therapy. Propensity scores incorporated demographic characteristics, comorbidities, carotid symptom status, preoperative medications, and physician and hospital procedural experience. The primary outcome was a composite end point of in-hospital stroke and/or death. As a secondary analysis, we performed repeat propensity score-matching by postoperative statin use (prescribed at discharge) and assessed 5-year mortality. Relative risks (RR) and hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using log binomial regression and Cox regression, respectively.ResultsAmong 97,835 CEA, 20,303 tfCAS, and 22,371 TCAR patients, 15%, 17%, and 10% of patients did not receive preoperative statin therapy, respectively. Compared with statin use, no statin use was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital stroke or death among 13,434 matched CEA patients (no statin, 1.7% vs statin, 1.4%; RR, 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.5) and among 2707 matched tfCAS patients (4.8% vs 2.8%; RR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.3). However, there was no difference for this outcome by statin use among 2089 matched TCAR patients (1.8% vs 1.6%; RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-1.8). At 5 years, no statin therapy at discharge was associated with higher 5-year mortality after CEA (15% vs 10%; HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6-2) and tfCAS (18% vs 14%; HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8), but there was no difference after TCAR (14% vs 11%; HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9-1.8).ConclusionsCompared with statin use, no statin use was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital stroke or death and 5-year mortality among CEA and tfCAS patients. Although there was no significant difference in outcomes among TCAR patients, this may in part be due to lower statistical power in this cohort. Overall, statin therapy is essential in the short- and long-term management of patients undergoing carotid revascularization. Our findings not only support current Society for Vascular Surgery recommendations for statin therapy in patients undergoing carotid revascularization, but they also highlight an important opportunity for quality improvement.