颈动脉狭窄手术及介入治疗的围术期管理

背景 脑卒中是造成人类死亡的主要原因之一.15％～20％的缺血性脑血管病归因于颈动脉狭窄或闭塞,颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)和颈动脉血管腔内球囊成形及支架植入术(carotid angioplasty and stenting,CAS)对预防缺血事件发生有效,但围手术期卒中、死亡等并发症对围术期管理提出挑战. 目的 对颈动脉狭窄手术及介入治疗围术期管理进行综述. 内容 重点阐述CEA和CAS围术期危险因素控制、术前评估、麻醉方法与管理、术中神经功能监测和脑保护. 趋向 积极谨慎的围术期管理是保证颈动脉狭窄患者围术期脑氧供需平衡、降低围术期并发症的有效措施.     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术与颈动脉支架植入术治疗颈动脉狭窄的疗效分析

目的:比较颈动脉内膜剥脱术（carotid endarterectomy,CEA）和颈动脉支架植入术（carotid artery stenting,CAS）治疗颈动脉狭窄患者的围手术期及中远期预后差异。方法:回顾性分析2011年1月至2020年8月期间于北京安贞医院血管外科行手术治疗的1 329例颈动脉狭窄患者的临床...     

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。     

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。     

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.     

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。     

颈动脉双层支架的设计和临床研究

<正>目前,颈动脉支架成形术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)已逐步成为颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)的重要替代,但仍存在一些未解决的缺陷,如围术期及术后斑块脱落致脑卒中并发症等。研究表明,超过2/3的CAS相关卒中或短暂性脑缺血发作(transient ischemic attack, TIA)发生在术后,可能是斑块经网孔脱落引起的[1, 2]。在复杂CAS中,外科医师会根据患者情况选择不同技术参数特点的颈动脉支架,但目前颈动脉支架种类繁多,选择尚存争议。本文对颈动脉支架术后脑梗死(post carotid artery stenting stroke,PCS)的流行病     

颈动脉再通术后重度再狭窄病变的诊治策略

目的评估颈动脉支架成形术(CAS)和颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)治疗颅外颈动脉狭窄后重度再狭窄的诊断和治疗策略。方法回顾性分析2012年1月至2017年1月在复旦大学附属中山医院接受颈动脉再通手术治疗后发生严重再狭窄而二次手术治疗的15例患者资料,其中CEA术后再狭窄3例,CAS术后再狭窄12例,均通过血管多普勒超声检查和数字减影血管造影明确诊断。结果对于CEA术后再狭窄的患者,治疗包括脑保护下CAS手术(2例)、球囊扩张(1例);对于CAS术后再狭窄的患者,治疗包括再次行CEA及补片血管成形术(7例)、球囊扩张(3例)、再次行脑保护下CAS术(2例)。患者围术期无脑卒中或死亡发生。1例CAS术后再狭窄患者采用单纯球囊扩张治疗后,6个月随访再次发生颈动脉再狭窄且伴有短暂性脑缺血发作的症状,接受CEA及补片血管成形术,术后随访1年显示颈动脉血流通畅。其余患者在术后随访过程中未见脑卒中或再狭窄发生。结论血管多普勒超声检查和数字减影血管造影是诊断颅外颈动脉再通术后再狭窄的重要手段。对于重度再狭窄的患者,需注意个体化治疗方式,围术期疗效及中期再狭窄复发率较满意,但仍需密切随访,注意再狭窄复发的风险。     

颈动脉内膜剥脱与支架置入术患者围手术期脑灌注对比分析

目的:通过全脑CT灌注成像(WBCTP)分析并比较颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)与颈动脉支架成形术(CAS)对颈动脉狭窄患者围手术期脑灌注的影响及差异。方法:参照北美症状性颈动脉内膜切除术(NASCET)标准,选择32例经全脑动脉造影确诊颈动脉狭窄的患者,其中行CEA 11例、行CAS 21例。所有患者术前、术后1周均行WBCTP检查采集脑灌注数据,分析并比较两组相对脑血流量(r CBF)、相对脑血容量(r CBV)、相对平均通过时间(r MTT)的变化及差异。结果:与术前比较,两组患者术后r CBF、r CBV、r MTT均明显改善(均P0.05),两组间以上指标变化程度均无统计学差异(均P0.05)。结论:CEA、CAS两种术式均可改善颈动脉狭窄患者脑灌注,且疗效相似。     

近红外光谱脑氧饱和度监测用于颈动脉内膜剥脱术的研究进展

正颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)是目前治疗有症状性颈动脉狭窄的常用外科方法~([1])。患者能否从CEA手术中获益,取决于围术期神经系统不良事件的发生率~([2])。术后神经系统不良事件包括血栓栓塞和脑高灌注综合征(cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome,CHS)~([2])。围术期卒中的危险因素包括手术操作引起的斑块脱落、术中颈     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术的临床应用

目的 探讨颈动脉内膜剥脱术的适应证及围手术期处理。方法 回顾性总结11例因短暂性脑缺血(TIA)伴有颈动脉硬化狭窄患者而行颈动脉内膜剥脱术的临床资料。结果 术后所有患者的TIA表现消失，4例慢性脑缺血症状也得到明显的改善。术后未出现偏瘫或脑出血等严重的并发症。结论 对于TIA病人在经Doppler超声或DSA或MRA检查发现-侧或双侧颈总动脉或颈内动脉狭窄大于50％，可以考虑行颈动脉内膜剥脱术。对于双侧颈动脉狭窄者，分期手术治疗较为安全。作好围手术期处理，有助于减少手术并发症发生。     

Early results of carotid stent placement for treatment of extracranial carotid bifurcation occlusive disease

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review the initial results of carotid artery angioplasty with stenting (CAS) performed by vascular surgeons to treat bifurcation occlusive disease. Most patients were selected for CAS if they had indications for endarterectomy (CEA) but were considered at high risk for surgery. METHODS: Since December 2000, 74 carotid arteries in 69 patients underwent CAS, with distal balloon embolization protection in 96%. Mean patient age was 72 years; 82% of patients were men. Indications for CAS included asymptomatic disease (62%), transient ischemic attack (TIA; 23%), and cerebrovascular accident (15%). Mean internal carotid artery diameter stenosis was 82%. CAS was chosen over CEA because of cardiac (49%) or pulmonary (4%) comorbid conditions, hostile neck (25%), distal extent of disease (6%), and contralateral cranial nerve injury (1%). CAS was performed in 15% patients who were good surgical candidates, because of patient preference. Pathologic conditions were primary atherosclerosis (81%), recurrent carotid stenosis (18%), and dissection (1%). Procedures were transfemoral in 95% of cases and transcarotid in 5%. In 30% of cases the contralateral carotid artery had 80% or greater stenosis or was completely occluded. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 96% of cases. There were no deaths, no major strokes, one minor stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, 3), and one TIA (neurologic event rate, 2.6%). The single minor stroke resolved completely by 1 month. One patient (1.3%) had a perioperative myocardial infarction. Transient neurologic changes occurred in 8% of patients during the protection balloon inflation, and all resolved with deflation. Bradyarrhythmia requiring pharmacologic treatment occurred in 14% of patients. At mean follow-up of 6 months there have been two instances of recurrent stenosis greater than 50% as noted at duplex scanning. During the same period, 266 carotid CEAs were performed, with a neurologic event rate of 0.8% (major stroke, 0.4%; no minor strokes; TIA, 0.4%) and a myocardial infarction rate of 3%. Combined stroke and death rate was 1.3% in patients who underwent CAS and 0.5% in patients who underwent CEA. CONCLUSION: CAS with cerebral protection can be performed safely in patients at high surgical risk, with low perioperative morbidity and mortality. The durability of the procedure must be determined with longer follow-up.     

Carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy for treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a randomized trial in a community hospital

OBJECTIVE: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is effective in reducing the risk of stroke in individuals with more than 60% carotid stenosis. Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been proffered as effective and used in treating individuals with asymptomatic carotid stenosis despite the absence of proven clinical equivalency. This randomized trial was designed to explore the hypothesis that CAS is equivalent to CEA for treating asymptomatic carotid stenosis. METHODS: A total of 85 individuals presenting with asymptomatic carotid stenosis of more than 80% were selected randomly for CAS or CEA and followed up for 48 months. RESULTS: Stenosis decreased to an average of 5% after CAS. The patency of the reconstructed artery remained satisfactory regardless of the technique, as determined by carotid ultrasonography. No major complications such as cerebral ischemia or death occurred. Procedural complications associated with CAS (n = 5) were hypotension and/or bradycardia; those concomitant with CEA (n = 3) were cervical nerve injury or complications related to general anesthesia (n = 4). Both procedures were well tolerated in the context of pain and discomfort. Hospital stay was similar in the two groups (mean, 1.1 versus 1.2 d). The occurrence of complications associated with CAS or CEA prolonged hospitalization by 3 days (mean, 4.0 versus 4.5 d). Return to full activity was achieved within 1 week by more than 85% of patients; all returned to their usual lifestyle by 2 weeks. Although hospital charges were slightly higher for CAS, costs were similar. CONCLUSION: CAS and CEA may be equally effective and safe in treating individuals with asymptomatic carotid stenosis.     

Selecting an Appropriate Surgical Treatment Instead of Carotid Artery Stenting Alone According to the Patient’s Risk Factors Contributes to Reduced Perioperative Complications in Patients with Internal Carotid Stenosis: A Single Institutional Retrospective Analysis

This retrospective study was aimed to compare the perioperative complications for internal carotid artery stenosis (ICS) in a Japanese single institute between the use of carotid artery stenting (CAS) alone or the use of an appropriate individualized treatment method allowing either carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or CAS based on patient risk factors. Based on the policy at our hospital, only CAS was performed on patients (n = 33) between January 2005 and November 2009. From December 2009 to December 2012, either CEA or CAS (tailored treatment) was selected for patients (n = 61) based on individual patient risk factors. CEA was considered the first-line treatment in all cases. In high-risk CEA cases, CAS was performed instead (n = 11), whereas in low-risk CEA cases, CEA was performed (n = 19). Further, in moderate-risk CEA cases based on own criteria, CAS was considered first, whereas for high-risk CAS cases, CEA was performed (n = 17). For low-risk CAS cases, CAS was performed (n = 9). Perioperative clinical complications (any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 30 days) were compared between both periods. Significantly reduced perioperative complications were observed during the tailored period (4/61 sites, 6.6%) as compared with the CAS period (8/33 sites, 24.2%) [Fisher’s exact test p = 0.022; odds ratio, 4.56 (CAS/tailored); 95% confidence interval, 1.26–16.5]. Selecting an appropriate individualized treatment method according to patient risk factors, as opposed to adhering to a single treatment approach such as CAS, may contribute to improved overall outcomes in patients with ICS.     

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。     

颈内动脉狭窄处扭曲的血管内治疗

目的 探讨血管内支架成形术治疗颈内动脉狭窄处扭曲的必要性、可行性和安全性.方法 选择2003年12月至2009年12月经数字减影血管造影(DSA)检查证实的症状性颈内动脉狭窄且狭窄处伴扭曲的12例患者,采用血管内支架成形术处理颈动脉狭窄伴扭曲,分析其临床、影像学、支架成形术和随访观察资料,评价治疗效果.结果 12例颈内动脉狭窄伴扭曲的患者全部成功实施血管内支架成形术,支架置入成功率100%,无支架相关死亡或致残.12例患者共置入自膨式支架14枚,平均狭窄率由术前的85.6%下降至11.2%;扭曲角度(Metz观测分类法)由术前＜90°变为＞120°;无围手术期短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)和脑卒中发生,临床症状改善或消失.临床随访6～72个月,发生支架同侧和对侧TIA各1例;5例患者行DSA检查,其中1例发生再狭窄并在支架远端发生新的扭曲,再次支架置入治疗,2年后CT血管造影(CTA)复查未见扭曲和支架内再狭窄;另外7例行颈部血管超声检查,未见再狭窄和扭曲.结论 血管内支架成形术治疗颈内动脉狭窄伴扭曲,技术上是可行、安全的,可能有助于减少脑缺血发生,但有待于进一步观察.

Abstract：

Objective To study the necessity, feasibility, security of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) for symptomatic carotid stenosis combined with kinking. Methods Twelve patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis and kinking demonstrated by digital subtraction angiography (DSA) received CAS from December 2003 to December 2009. There were 9 male and 3 female patients, age ranged from 59 to 77 years(mean 69.3 years). All the patients' clinical, imaging, intervention and follow up data were collected and analyzed. Results All CAS procedures were successfully performed with 14 self-expandable stents placed. The mean degree of stenosis was reduced from 85. 6% before stenting to 11.2% after stenting,the angle of kinking, according to Metz' category, were improved from less than 90° to more than 120° in each case. No perioperative procedure related stroke and tranient ichemic attack (TIA) occurred. The clinical symptoms and signs of cerebral ischemia were improved or disappeared for all patients. During follow-up of these 12 patients for 6 to 72 months, one patient experienced ipsilateral carotid territory TIA and another patient experienced contralateral carotid territory TIA. DSA follow up of 5 patients demonstrated 1 case with in-stent restenosis and arterial kinking remote to the stent of internal carotid artery. CAS were performed again and CT angiography follow up demonstrated no kinking and restenosis 2 years after the intervention. Duplex scan of the other 7 patients demonstrated neither kinking nor restenosis. Conclusions CAS seems to be feasible and safe for the patients with symptomatic kinking and stenosis, and maybe helpful to lower the risk of cerebral ischemia, but further study is needed.     

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。     

颈动脉外翻内膜剥脱术治疗颈动脉硬化狭窄

目的观察颈动脉外翻内膜剥脱术治疗颈动脉狭窄的疗效。方法24例颈动脉硬化狭窄患者,其中18例有慢性或一过性脑缺血症状,6例无症状;术前均行彩色超声、数字减影动脉造影(DSA)或CT和MRA扫描检查,颈动脉狭窄程度65％～95％;在颈丛麻醉下行颈动脉外翻内膜剥脱术,手术要点是于颈动脉分叉处斜形切断颈内动脉,外翻颈内动脉剥除有粥样斑块的内膜,同时从颈总动脉切口剥除颈总动脉和颈外动脉增厚的内膜。结果全组无手术死亡,术后随访3～20个月,临床症状均有不同程度改善,一过性脑缺血症状消失,4例仍有轻度慢性脑缺血症状。术后行脑部多普勒超声检查,22例脑部供血有明显改善。结论颈动脉外翻内膜剥脱术是一种安全、有效和合理的手术方式。     

������Ĥ���������ƾ�������խ179���ٴ�����

目的分析颈动脉内膜剥脱术后并发症的原因,探讨其防治措施。方法回顾性分析南京大学医学院附属鼓楼医院血管外科收治的因严重颈动脉狭窄行颈动脉内膜剥脱术179例。其中标准式颈动脉内膜剥脱术(SCEA)87例,外翻式颈动脉内膜剥脱术(ECEA)92例。转流管使用35例,均为SCEA术式。结果所有手术操作顺利。围手术期内发生急性颈动脉血栓形成1例、脑梗死2例、脑出血2例、暂时性失读1例、舌下神经损伤1例、声音嘶哑1例、伤口血肿3例。围手术期死亡1例。结论手术指征不严、术中操作失误、术后处理不当是导致相关并发症的主要因素。对于并发症的发生重在预防,发生后必须准确判断、处理迅速。