颅外段颈动脉狭窄的手术治疗

目的探讨颅外段颈动脉狭窄的手术治疗。方法回顾性分析2009年5月—2011年5月收治的36例颅外段颈动脉狭窄患者的临床资料。结果男22例,女14例;平均(69.6±2.1)岁,病程平均(11±1.1)个月。病变部位:左侧19例,右侧14例,双侧3例。均有不同程度的脑缺血表现,病变范围在颈动脉分叉处及颈内动脉起始部,狭窄长度平均(27.6±1.3)mm,狭窄程度均≥60%。均经影像学明确诊断,全部在全身麻醉下行颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗。手术时间平均(75±5)min,颈动脉阻断时间为平均(13.2±1.2)min,术中使用颈动脉内转流管7例,使用血管补片13例。1例术后因内膜撕脱形成夹层行颈动脉支架置入术。1例术后脑梗死予以对症治疗,2周后康复出院,无后遗症。1例损伤耳大神经,1例舌下神经牵拉损伤;本组无手术死亡。随访33例,平均随访(23±2)个月。1例随访6个月时因急性心肌梗死死亡。1例术后16个月超声检查发现颈动脉再狭窄,狭窄程度为60%,无临床症状,未作特殊处理。余患者颈动脉通畅。结论颈动脉内膜剥脱术是一种预防脑卒中的可靠治疗方法,但是具有高风险性,严格把握手术指征、规范手术操作以及科学的围手术期处理对取得...     

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。     

颈动脉狭窄的外科治疗选择及疗效分析

颅外段颈动脉硬化狭窄或闭塞是缺血性脑卒中发生的主要病因之一,通过早期的外科积极干预可以有效降低缺血性脑卒中发生率.DeBakey[1]在世界上成功地完成了首例颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA),随后各种高质量临床研究均证实CEA对降低脑卒中发生率的积极意义[2-5],CEA已成为一...     

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。     

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...     

颈动脉狭窄的治疗进展

颈动脉内膜剥脱术一直被认为是治疗有症状和无症状严重颈动脉狭窄的金标准,而颈动脉血管支架成形术是近10余年新出现的技术。其微创的特点对于颈动脉内膜剥脱术而言,无疑是一种技术上的进步,特别是有高度手术风险的患者颈动脉血管支架成形术是最好的选择。文章分别阐述两种手术的特点,提出颈动脉狭窄治疗的最佳选择及当前面临的焦点问题。     

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窄的CABG患者,最佳治疗策略尚未达成共识.既往外科治疗多采用分期或同期颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA),但近年来随着经皮介入治疗技术的发展,大多数可以采用分期或同期经皮颈动脉支架置人术(carotid artery stenting,CAS).CABG合并颈动脉狭窄患者围术期麻醉处理的关键是维持血流动力学平稳,保证大脑的有效灌注压,避免脑缺血和栓塞.趋向 同日CAS-CABG"杂交"手术已显示出可行性,并有待进一步研究.     

经颈动脉血运重建术对颈动脉狭窄治疗方式的挑战

正颈动脉狭窄(carotid stenosis,CS)是指由多种因素,包括动脉粥样硬化、自身炎性反应或外伤等原因,导致的颈内、颈外或颈总动脉单个节段或者多部位狭窄甚至闭塞的一类疾病[1]。由于大脑血供主要来自于两侧的颈内动脉及椎动脉,颈动脉狭窄会诱发缺血性脑卒中的发生。国内外大量的临床研究表明,众多脑血管事件的发生与颈动脉狭窄存在直接相关性,由于颈动脉狭窄导致的脑卒中占所有缺血性脑卒中的30%[2],其致死率更是高居国际各类致死性疾病的前     

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。     

血管内支架成形术治疗颅外段颈动脉狭窄

目的:分析总结血管内支架治疗颅外段颈动脉狭窄的方法和并发症的预防.方法2001年10月至2008年6月共271例(300侧)颅外段颈动脉狭窄患者接受血管内支架成形术治疗,术前口服氯吡格雷75 ms/d,肠溶阿司匹林100～200 mg/d,辛伐他丁40 mg/晚,共5～10 d.应用肝素持续静脉滴注(50 mg/d)共2 d.术后继续抗血小板、降脂治疗.结果:271例患者(300侧)手术均获成功,颈动脉狭窄和脑缺血症状得到明显改善.术后1周内并发症7例,1例死亡.226例患者3～24个月行超声或数字减影血管造影,5例发生再狭窄;其中45例患者超声随访超过36个月,无再狭窄病例;所有病例随访期间无脑缺血相关症状发生.结论:血管内支架治疗颈动脉狭窄是安全有效的,正确的围手术期的处理以及娴熟的操作技巧是手术成功的关键.     

Evidence for Management of Carotid Artery Stenosis

In this review, we presented the evidence concerning carotid artery stenosis treatment in symptomatic stenosis and asymptomatic stenosis separately, and discussed the future challenges. The validity of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to treat moderate or greater degree of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis appears to be established. Due to the additional option of carotid artery stenting (CAS), it is necessary to comprehensively determine whether CEA or CAS is more appropriate for each individual patient. Moreover, since there are rapid advancements in devices for CAS and improvements in treatment outcomes, continual learning of the latest treatment method is essential. For asymptomatic stenosis, due to improvements in the outcomes with best medical treatment (BMT), it is essential to re-evaluate the use of invasive CEA/CAS. Continual verification of the latest randomized clinical trial that compares CEA, CAS, and BMT, and establishment of a diagnostic method that can accurately extract the group of patients who have the highest future risk of developing ischemia, are desired.     

Analysis of Surgical Treatment of Patients with Carotid Artery Stenosis Endarterectomy Versus Stenting

The aim of this paper is to characterize a group of patients with internal carotid artery stenosis and to analyze the outcome of internal carotid artery stenosis treatment. The outcome of treatment of 230 patients with internal carotid artery stenosis hospitalized from 1^st January 2004 to 31^st August 2006 was analyzed. Twenty nine percent of the patients were selected for medical treatment, 70.4% received surgical or endovascular treatment (83.3% of all invasive procedures were endarterectomies, versus 16.7% stenting). The peri-procedural stroke-death rate was 4.9% of patients [3.7% after CEA and 11.1% after CAS (N.S.)]. Statistical analysis disclosed that endarterectomy was associated with a longer in-hospital stay (p < 0.001). In conclusion: Both surgical methods, endarterectomy and stenting are equivalent in safety and present comparable clinical outcomes in selected subgroups of patients (classified to the specific procedure on the basis of the type of atherosclerotic plaque).     

Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Carotid Stenting: an Updated Review of Randomized Trials and Subgroup Analyses

Atherosclerotic disease of the carotid arteries is responsible for a significant portion of ischemic strokes. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is currently the accepted standard of treatment for patients with severe symptomatic carotid stenosis. In the past few years, however, carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has emerged as a potential alternative endovascular treatment strategy for this disorder. In fact, spurred by the positive results of single center studies and small, pivotal randomized trials, some even consider CAS as the treatment modality of choice, especially in presumably surgical high-risk patients. Yet, randomized trials directly comparing CAS with CEA are sparse and have produced conflicting results.

The aim of this article is to review the current trial data on this issue and to define the role of these techniques for the management of two important subgroups of patients.

An updated meta-analysis of seven randomized trials comparing CEA with CAS demonstrates that CAS is associated with a significantly increased risk of any stroke or death within 30 days (OR. 1.41, 95% CI 1.07-1.87, p<0.05). Focusing on patients with a symptomatic carotid stenosis, there was also a significant difference in the odds of treatment-related stroke and death between CAS and CEA (OR, 1.41; CI 1.05 to 1.88, p < 0.05). Data on all disabling strokes and deaths within 30 days was available from five trials. The odds of disabling stroke or death at 30 days were similar in the endovascular and surgical group (OR, 1.33, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.98).

Overall, these data do not justify a blind enthusiasm for CAS and a widespread use of this procedure for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. On the other hand, a closer inspection of the current literature on elderly patients and those with a contralateral carotid occlusion clearly indicates that CAS and CEA already now have a complementary role. While elderly patients should preferentially be treated with CEA, CAS appears to be the treatment of choice in patients with a symptomatic carotid artery stenosis and a contralateral carotid occlusion in experienced centers.     

Surgery and Stenting As Combined Treatment of a Symptomatic Tandem Stenosis of the Carotid Artery

International co-operative studies have demonstrated a benefit from surgery for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients affected by internal carotid artery stenosis of 60-70%. The presence of a tandem lesion, intracranial or extracranial, may annul the benefit of surgery. Such patients may thus represent a challenging problem for management if age, good general conditions and a normal neurological status favour a therapy. A 54-year-old man developed transient ischaemic attacks of the left hemisphere; his general condition was good, and neurological status was normal. Angiography showed a tight stenosis at the left common carotid artery near the ostium and at the homolateral carotid bifurcation. At first, a self-expanding wall stent was placed at the level of the common carotid artery stenosis, and immediately after a standard endarterectomy under general anaesthesia was performed. The postoperative course was normal and was complicated only by the presence of a mild deficit of the hypoglossal nerve due to the presence of a high bifurcation. The early and late outcome of our case suggests that stenosis of the proximal common carotid artery may be successfully treated by stenting. While awaiting additional data about this new technology, endovascular techniques and surgery may be complementary in the management of patients suffering from such tandem lesions.     

Surgical Treatment for Cervical Carotid Artery Stenosis in the Elderly: Importance of Perioperative Management of Ischemic Cardiac Complications

Ischemic cardiac complication is one of the major perioperative complications of surgical treatment for cervical carotid stenosis, carotid endarterectomy (CEA), and carotid artery stenting (CAS), and may greatly affect surgical outcome, especially in elderly patients aged ≥ 80 years. We retrospectively analyzed the records of 259 patients (34 patients aged ≥ 80 years) treated by CEA and 61 patients (12 patients aged ≥ 80 years) treated by CAS at Aizu Chuo Hospital from January 2000 to September 2010. Preoperative ischemic heart disease screening was performed in all patients. If high risk of coronary atherosclerotic stenosis was detected, treatment for coronary lesion was performed prior to CEA or CAS. There was no preoperative ischemic cardiac complication in both the CEA and CAS groups. Perioperative complications (morbidity + mortality) occurred in 2.9% of patients aged ≥ 80 years and 1.7% of patients aged ≤ 79 years in the CEA group, and 8.3% and 8.1% of patients, respectively, in the CAS group. There was no statistically significant difference by age in either group. CEA could be safely performed with tolerable complication rates even in elderly patients. However, the complication rate in the CAS group was relatively high. New ischemic lesion on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, tended to occur at a higher rate in the CAS group, especially in the elderly patients. Thorough perioperative management may minimize ischemic cardiac complications even in elderly patients. Efforts must be continued to minimize surgical complications, especially for CAS. Noninvasive medical treatment should also be considered for elderly patients.     

Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis in Patients on Medical Treatment Alone

OBJECTIVE: the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of currently recommended medical treatment (MT) on changes in carotid stenosis in a group of asymptomatic patients taken from the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST). METHOD: collaborators in ACST were given information on MT for stroke prevention (including antiplatelet agents, lipid-lowering drugs, diabetic and hypertension control). Patients underwent clinical examination and duplex scanning at entry, 4 months following randomisation and annually thereafter. The cohort of patients studied were those randomised to MT with complete follow up duplex datasets at four years (n=219). None had undergone carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or developed ipsilateral carotid symptoms. RESULTS: there was no change in median carotid stenosis over four years (baseline 79% (IQR 10%) and 4 year median 79% (IQR 10%)) a median difference of 0 with Q1=-5 and Q3=+5 (p=0.98 Wilcoxon one sample test), whilst in many patients' stenoses progressed and regressed during this time. No individual MT variable correlated with stenosis progression or regression. CONCLUSION: in this group of ACST patients on MT, mean carotid stenosis was unchanged over 4 years. Individual patients' stenoses progressed (and regressed) without symptoms occurring. An increase in stenosis should not be the sole basis for deciding to operate on an asymptomatic patient.