脑保护装置下的血管成形和支架置入术治疗颈动脉狭窄

目的：探讨颈动脉狭窄患者颈动脉血管成形和支架置入术（CAS）中应用脑保护装置的有效性和安全性。方法：颈动脉狭窄患者CAS治疗时，12例应用脑保护装置（滤网型），16例未使用脑保护装置。结果：28例颈动脉狭窄患者成功释放31枚自膨式支架。未使用脑保护装置组球囊预扩1次（6．2％），无一例后扩；使用脑保护装置组球囊预扩4次（33．3％），后扩6次（50％）。CAS治疗中，7例（25．0％）患者出现短暂性心率减慢和低血压。回收的脑保护装置中2例（16．7％）肉眼可见组织碎片。使用脑保护装置组在围手术期和随访期无神经并发症；未使用脑保护装置组围手术期发生1例（6．3％）脑梗死，随访期发生1例（6．3％）脑梗死。结论：脑保护装置的使用有助于减少颈动脉狭窄患者CAS治疗的神经并发症。     

脑保护装置下高龄重度颈动脉狭窄患者颈动脉支架成形术的有效性和安全性评价

目的评价脑保护装置下高龄重度颈动脉狭窄患者颈动脉支架成形术(CAS)的有效性及安全性。方法选择2009年1月—2012年1月在青岛大学医学院附属医院行CAS的高龄重度颈动脉狭窄患者37例,术中均应用脑保护装置,观察患者狭窄改善情况、围术期并发症发生情况、回收脑保护装置内脱落栓子情况,随访1年观察患者缺血性脑血管事件发生情况。结果 36例患者脑保护伞均一次性顺利通过狭窄段放置到位成功释放;术后残余狭窄率均30%,平均狭窄程度从(83.0±6.7)%降至(13.0±6.1)%;回收的脑保护装置中有26个发现脱落的组织碎片;围术期均未出现脑出血、症状性脑梗死、支架内血栓形成等严重并发症;37例患者随访1年,无短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)、卒中、死亡发生。结论脑保护装置下对高龄重度颈动脉狭窄患者行CAS成功率和安全性较高。     

颈动脉支架成形术治疗老年重度颈内动脉狭窄患者的疗效观察

目的评价脑保护装置下老年重度颈动脉狭窄患者颈动脉支架成形术的有效性及安全性。方法选择年龄≥70岁的重度症状性颈动脉狭窄患者43例,均行颈动脉支架成形术,术中均应用脑保护装置,观察术后狭窄改善情况,围术期并发症的发生情况以及回收的脑保护装置内脱落栓子情况,对患者随访1年。结果在43例患者中,脑保护装置及颈动脉支架均放置到位,术后残余狭窄率均<30%,患者颈动脉平均狭窄程度从(82.8±6.5)%降低至(12.4±5.9)%,支架置入手术前后比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。回收的脑保护装置中,发现27个有脱落的组织碎片,患者术后缺血相关症状均有明显改善,围术期所有患者均未出现症状性脑卒中,无手术相关死亡事件发生,1年随访无缺血性脑血管事件发生,颈动脉超声复查未见支架内发生再狭窄。结论脑保护装置下,对老年重度颈内动脉狭窄患者行颈动脉支架成形术安全、有效。     

颅外颈动脉支架成形术后颈动脉狭窄的危险因素分析

目的探讨颈动脉支架形成术(CAS)治疗颈动脉狭窄的危险因素,并分析其有效性和安全性。方法回顾性分析采用CAS治疗颈动脉狭窄的110例病人资料,根据术后30 d内有无不良事件发生分为有不良事件组(24例)和无不良事件组(86例),比较两组病人临床资料、危险因素、术前美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分、术前血管狭窄程度、狭窄部位等,预后结果采取多因素Logistic回归分析,全部CAS病例应用脑保护装置防止血栓脱落。结果 110例病人共植入支架115枚,脑保护装置全部回收,支架植入术成功率为100%。狭窄程度由术前中度、重度变为术后轻度、中度;围术期术后总体并发症24例(21.8%),30 d内不良事件7例(6.36%);随访3个月后,2例支架内再狭窄。两组年龄、高血压比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05);多因素Logistic回归分析显示高血压是CAS治疗颈动脉狭窄的危险因素。结论 CAS治疗颈动脉狭窄30 d内出现不良事件与高血压显著相关,颅外CAS可有效减轻病人颈动脉狭窄程度,且围术期是相对安全的。     

颈动脉狭窄支架成形术疗效及并发症分析

目的探讨血管内支架成形术治疗颈动脉狭窄的临床疗效、安全性及并发症。方法选择经脑血管造影证实的颈动脉狭窄患者100例行血管内支架成形术,术中应用抗栓塞远端保护装置,球囊预扩张狭窄部位,释放颈动脉自膨支架。结果所有支架释放定位准确,残余狭窄〈30%,围手术期出现1例脑出血,1例急性血管形成。临床随访1例再发短暂性脑缺血发作,超声示支架远端再狭窄。结论应用脑保护装置进行血管内支架成形术是治疗颈动脉狭窄安全可行的方法 。     

脑保护装置下颈动脉狭窄支架成形术临床应用观察

目的观察脑保护装置下颈动脉狭窄支架成形术的有效性和安全性。方法颈动脉狭窄患者45例,在颈动脉狭窄支架成形术中使用脑保护装置,首先将脑保护装置(过滤伞)小心通过颈动脉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的发生情况。结果 45例保护伞放置及支架成形术均成功,术后残余狭窄<20%。操作过程中未发生栓塞等并发症。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,可降低手术风险。     

远端保护装置下CAS治疗颈动脉狭窄的疗效及并发症分析

目的探讨在远端保护装置（保护装置）下采用血管内支架成形术（CAS）治疗颈动脉狭窄的疗效,分析其并发症发生情况。方法对47例颈动脉狭窄患者行颈动脉CAS时应用保护装置,先将保护装置通过狭窄部位并在狭窄远端展开,然后行保护性颈动脉CAS;并对手术过程、疗效及围术期并发症进行分析。结果术后颈动脉造影证实,残余狭窄率〈30%,术后第10天死亡1例;术后1 a均未发生TIA、再卒中及死亡。结论在保护装置下采用CAS治疗颈动脉狭窄安全有效;掌握其适应证及操作规范,可减少并发症发生。     

支架置入术治疗颈动脉狭窄

目的 :总结血管内支架置入治疗颈动脉狭窄的安全性和疗效。方法 :收治颈动脉狭窄患者 16例 ,其中 3例进行狭窄预扩 ,3例使用脑保护装置 ,共放置自膨式支架 18枚。结果 :18枚支架均成功置入 ,术中无严重并发症 ,1例 (6 3% )术后第 3天发生非处理血管供血区脑梗死。随访 1～ 8个月 ,无新发短暂性脑缺血发作 (TIA)和脑梗死 ,末次改良Rankin量表评分平均 0 75 (0～ 2 )分 ,所有患者生活均自理。 10例患者术后 3个月颈动脉彩超复查 ,均未见再狭窄。结论 :支架置入治疗颈动脉狭窄是一种比较安全和可能有效的方法 ,但亟需设计随机对照临床试验观察其长期疗效和不良反应。     

不同年龄颈动脉狭窄患者支架置入术围术期并发症的临床观察

目的探讨不同年龄颈动脉狭窄患者支架置入术(CAS)围术期30d内并发症。方法回顾性分析行CAS治疗的颈动脉狭窄患者137例,共行141处支架,按年龄分为3组:中年组(<60岁)44例,老年组(60~79岁)68例,高龄组(≥80岁)25例,观察3组间围术期30 d内并发症的发生情况。结果 3组术中心动过缓、短暂性低血压、脑梗死、高灌注综合征等并发症比较,无统计学差异(P>0.05)。高龄组术后持续性低血压发生率明显高于中年组和老年组(48.0%vs 11.4%,16.2%,P<0.05)。结论 CAS在各年龄段治疗颈动脉狭窄都是安全有效的;高龄患者术后持续性低血压的发生率明显增高,应早期积极治疗,以免出现相关严重并发症。     

老年颈动脉支架成形术的随访分析

目的了解老年颈动脉狭窄病人经皮颈动脉成形术及支架植入术(carotidarterystenting,CAS)的有效性及安全性。方法行CAS,颅外段颈动脉狭窄老年患者39例:男28例,女11例;年龄55～81(64±10)岁。随访1年。术前及术后1年行颈动脉超声心动图检查。结果手术成功率为100%,发生微小脑梗死1例;高灌注综合征1例。围手术期及随访中未见死亡及卒中的事件发生,超声检查示狭窄程度明显改善(P<0.001),仅见50%的支架内再狭窄2例(4.9%)。结论老年颅外段颈动脉狭窄的病人CAS是一种简单、安全、可行的手术方式。     

Carotid angioplasty and stenting under protection. State of the art

A carotid stenosis is responsible for about 30% of strokes occurring. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is considered to be the gold standard treatment of a carotid stenosis. Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is emerging as a new alternative treatment for a carotid artery stenosis, but the risk of neurological complications and brain embolism remain the major drawback to this procedure. So as to reduce the risk, we need: good indications, good patient and lesion selection; correct techniques; brain protection devices (cerebral protection devices should be routinely used and are mandatory for any procedure. Three types of protection devices are available: filters are the most commonly used. Nevertheless, all protection devices have limitations and cannot prevent from embolic events. However neurological complications can be reduced by 60%. New protection devices will be discussed); good choice of the stent and correct implantation (all stents are not equivalent and have different geometrical effects); pharmacological adjuncts; good team. Indications are well accepted for high-risk patients and recent studies have shown that CAS has superior short-term outcomes than CEA in this group of patients. Indications for low-risk and asymptomatic patients are controversial. New selection criteria have to be discussed. But there are enough reported data to conclude that CAS is also not inferior to CEA in low-risk and asymptomatic patients. In our series of 844 procedures, without protection (n = 187) 30-day death and stroke rate was 3.7% and with protection (n = 657) 1% (1.3% for symptomatic patients, 0.9% for asymptomatic patients, 1.4% in high-risk patients, 0.4% in low-risk patients). CAS under protection is the standard of care and is maybe becoming the gold standard treatment of a carotid stenosis at least in some subgroups of patients.     

Carotid angioplasty and stenting in octogenarians: Is it safe?

Purpose: Elderly patients have a higher risk of complications in carotid endarterectomy. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether carotid artery stenting (CAS) performed in octogenarians also increases the procedure related risk. Methods: 870 patients (male 626) mean age 70.9 ± 9.3 years underwent 930 CAS for de novo lesions (n = 851) restenoses (n = 54) post radiation (n = 14) inflammatory arteritis (n = 9) post trauma aneurysms (n = 2). Indications for treatment: symptomatic carotid stenosis ≥ 70% (n = 577) or asymptomatic stenosis ≥ 80%. Patients were separated into two age groups: <80 years (749 patients, 806 CAS) and >80 years (121 patients, 124 CAS). 187 CAS performed without protection (N.P?) 6 patients >80 years, 743 with protection (NP+) (occlusion balloon: 334, filters: 404, reversal flow: 6) 118 patients >80 years. Data analysis included neurological complications, death and myocardial infarction (MI) rate at 30 days, anatomical particularities. Technical points will be described depending on the age of the patient. Results: Technical success 804/806 in patients <80 years, 123/124 in patients >80 years (NS). 30 days outcomes: in the patient group <80 years we observed 9 TIA (1.1%) 3 without NP (1.7%) 6 with NP (0.9%), 5 minor strokes (0.6%) 2 without NP (1.1%) 3 with NP (0.5%), 3 major strokes: 2 without NP (1.1%) 1 with NP (0.2%), 5 deaths (0.6%) 2 without NP (1.1%) 3 with NP (0.5%). Death/stroke/MI: 14 (1.8%) 6 without NP (3.3%), 8 with NP (1.3%). In the group >80 years, we observed 2 TIA (1.7%) 1 without NP 1 with NP (0.92%) 1 minor stroke without NP (17%) no major stroke, no death. Death/stroke/MI 1 without NP (17%). Conclusion: CAS can be performed in elderly patients without higher risk than in younger patients. But good indications, a meticulous technique, protection devices are mandatory and some technical points must be pointed out to avoid neurological complications and failures. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Cerebral microemboli and neurocognitive change after carotid artery stenting with different embolic protection devices

Objectives

Proximal cerebral protection devices have been developed as an alternative to filter protection devices for reducing neurological complications during carotid artery stenting (CAS). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the frequency of silent cerebral embolism after CAS using different cerebral embolic protection devices and the impact of silent cerebral embolism on neurocognitive function.

Methods

One hundred consecutive patients who underwent CAS were enrolled. The patients were randomized to either proximal balloon occlusion or filter protection. Neurocognitive tests were performed before and six months after CAS. Cerebral embolisms were evaluated with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI).

Results

The number and volume of new ischemic lesions found with DW-MRI were higher in the filter protection group than in the proximal balloon occlusion group. According to our definition, nine (21%) patients in the balloon occlusion group and 16 (36%) patients in the filter protection group showed neurocognitive decline, and ten (23%) patients in the balloon occlusion group and four (9%) patients in the filter protection group showed neurocognitive improvement (NS). Regarding the group of patients with new cerebral ischemic lesions on DW-MRI, neurocognitive decline occurred in 14 (31%) of 45 patients with DW-MRI lesions and 11 (26%) of 43 patients without DW-MRI lesions (NS).

Conclusion

Neurocognitive outcome after CAS is unpredictable; both neurocognitive decline and improvement can occur. In this study, the proximal balloon occlusion system significantly decreased cerebral microemboli during CAS compared to filter protection. Cerebral microembolism was not found to be associated with neurocognitive decline.     

Carotid angioplasty under cerebral protection with the PercuSurge GuardWire System.

The purpose of this study was to examine the possible beneficial effect of the PercuSurge GuardWire cerebral protection device based on balloon occlusion of the distal internal carotid artery and debris aspiration for patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS). A total of 268 CAS procedures were attempted under cerebral protection using the PercuSurge GuardWire system in 242 patients (194 men; mean age, 71.2 +/- 9.4 years; range, 40-91). The lesions were mainly atherosclerotic; 64% were symptomatic. Technical success was 99.3%. All lesions were stented except three postangioplasty restenoses. Prophylactic occlusion during balloon dilatation and stenting was well tolerated in 255 patients (95.9%). Microscopic analysis of the aspirated blood showed different types of particles numbering between 7 and 145 per procedure, with a mean diameter of 250 microm (mean, 56-2,652 microm). The 30-day stroke and death rate was 2.3%, with four periprocedural complications at < 48 hr (one retinal embolism and three transient ischemic attacks), one intracerebral hemorrhage at 3 days, and one death of cardiac failure at 3 weeks. This technique appears safe and efficient with a low rate of periprocedural embolic events. Protection devices seem indispensable to perform CAS and expand the applicability of the procedure. Randomized studies (surgery vs. CAS with and without cerebral protection) are awaited.     

Feasibility of carotid artery stenting in patients with angiographic string sign

Background : Treatment of angiographic string sign (SS) of the carotid artery with carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been associated with a high incidence of periprocedural neurological events. We describe our experience with CAS in a case series of symptomatic patients with severe carotid stenosis and angiographic SS. Methods : We performed a retrospective review from 1999 to 2009 using our cardiac cath laboratory database and identified nine patients with the angiographic SS who underwent CAS. All patients were referred for carotid angiography by a neurologist due to symptoms (stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA)). All lesions were predilated and treated with self‐expanding stents. Distal protection devices were utilized (six patients) once they became available. Periprocedural outcomes and long‐term follow‐up was reviewed when available. Results : The average time from onset of symptoms to CAS was 45 days. All CAS procedures were technically and clinically successful without acute complications. One year follow‐up was available in eight patients. One patient had a possible TIA, and the remaining seven patients did not report any events (death, stroke, TIA or myocardial infarction). Carotid ultrasound evaluation at 12 months was available in six patients and showed no evidence of restenosis. Conclusions : In our experience, CAS in patients with severe symptomatic carotid stenosis and angiographic SS is feasible, with an acceptably low periprocedural complication rate. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Protected carotid artery stenting in patients with severe stenosis

Intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH) and ulcers are the major findings of unstable plaques. In addition, initial symptoms are associated with postprocedural complications after carotid artery stenting (CAS). The aim of this study was to determine the safety of CAS using an embolic protection device in symptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis and unstable plaques such as IPH and ulcers.This retrospective study included 140 consecutive patients with severe carotid stenosis. These patients underwent preprocedural carotid vessel wall imaging to evaluate the plaque status. We analyzed the incidence of initial clinical symptoms, such as headache, nausea, and vomiting, after CAS. The primary outcomes analyzed were the incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction, and death within 30 days of CAS.Sixty-seven patients (47.9%) had IPH, and 53 (38.9%) had ulcers on carotid wall imaging/angiography. Sixty-three patients (45.0%) had acute neurological symptoms with positive diffusion-weighted image findings. Intraluminal thrombi on initial angiography and flow arrest during CAS were significantly higher in patients with IPH and symptomatic patients. Symptoms were significantly higher in patients with IPH than in those without (63.5% vs 35.1%, P < .001). There were no significant differences in clinical symptoms after stenting or in primary outcomes, regardless of IPH, ulcer, or initial symptoms.IPH and plaque ulceration are risk factors in symptomatic carotid stenosis. However, IPH and plaque ulceration were not a significant risk factors for cerebral embolism during protected carotid artery stent placement in patients with carotid stenosis. Protected CAS might be feasible and safe despite the presence of unstable plaques.     

远端保护装置用于重度颈动脉狭窄的介入治疗

目的分析远端保护装置应用于颈动脉狭窄支架成形术的安全性和有效性。方法对26例症状性颈动脉狭窄患者行血管内支架成形术时应用远端保护装置，首先将远端保护装置通过狭窄部位并在狭窄远端展开，然后行保护性颈动脉支架成形术，观察围手术期缺血性脑卒中的发生情况，并观察保护装置滤网内捕获的斑块组织碎片。结果26例患者行远端滤网保护下的颈动脉支架成形术均获成功，回收的保护装置中有14个（54％）发现滤网中有斑块碎片组织和血栓颗粒，无死亡及急性栓塞事件发生，但有3例患者在手术后1～6d经磁共振检查发现了新的无症状性脑梗死病灶，26例患者在出院后临床随访期内未发生严重脑缺血事件。结论颈动脉支架成形术是重度症状性颈动脉狭窄的微创治疗方法，术中常规使用远端保护装置可提高颈动脉支架成形术的安全性和有效性。     

Protected Carotid Stenting in High‐Risk Patients: Results of the SpideRX Arm of the Carotid Revascularization with ev3 Arterial Technology Evolution Trial

Purpose: A prospective nonrandomized multicenter registry of 160 patients with severe carotid stenosis and high‐risk features for carotid endarterectomy was conducted during the 3‐month period from March to May 2005. Methods: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) was performed with the SpideRX? Embolic Protection System (ev3, Inc., Plymouth, MN, USA) as part of an investigational device exemption from the Food and Drug Administration. Results: The primary end‐point of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 30 days after CAS was observed in nine patients (5.6%), including death in four patients (2.5%), nonfatal stroke in five patients (3.1%), and nonfatal myocardial infarction in one patient (0.6%). A secondary end‐point of technical success (defined as successful deployment of all devices, filter retrieval, and final diameter stenosis <50%) was achieved in 156 of 160 patients (97.5%). The only independent predictor of death or stroke at 30 days was baseline stenosis severity (P < 0.05). Conclusion: CAS with distal embolic protection using the SpideRX? Embolic Protection System is a reasonable alternative for revascularization of some high‐risk patients with severe carotid stenosis. (J Interven Cardiol 2010;23:491–498)     

Carotid angioplasty with stenting in post-carotid endarterectomy restenosis

Recurrent stenosis post-carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is not a solitary or unusual phenomenon. Compared to the initial CEA, the reoperation is often more technically challenging and frequently results in local and neurological complications. Carotid artery angioplasty with stenting (CAS) is currently being investigated as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy. In our study, ninety-nine patients underwent CAS in 110 arteries. Procedural success was 99% (109/110). Our results show that CAS treatment in post-CEA restenosis, especially with improved technique and distal protection, is safe with a low neurological complication rate, without any "local" complications and without any cranial nerve palsies. This study suggests that the future primary mode of treatment of post-CEA restenosis might be carotid stenting rather than surgery.