多模态监测下颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗颈内动脉重度狭窄

目的探讨多模态监测下颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗颈内动脉重度狭窄的临床疗效。 方法回顾性分析常德市第一人民医院神经外科自2018年1月至2021年9月实施颈动脉内膜斑块剥脱术治疗的15例颈内动脉重度狭窄患者的基本资料、术后并发症和复查情况。 结果1例患者在预阻断时,多普勒提示血流下降50%,但电生理未提示异常,提高血压,未予以术中转流;3例患者电生理及多普勒同时提示低灌注,予以术中转流后均好转。术后所有患者无明显并发症,术后复查未见再狭窄。 结论多模态监测下颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗颈内动脉重度狭窄安全有效。     

Feasibility of simultaneous bilateral carotid artery stenting.

Due to the progressive aging of the population, severe bilateral carotid stenosis has become a more frequent condition. On occasion, simultaneous revascularization may be appropriate. There is increased evidence that for these high-risk patients, a percutaneous revascularization may be the best approach. However, there are concerns that simultaneous bilateral carotid stenting may be associated with cerebral hyperperfusion, excessive bradycardia, and hypotension. We report a series of 10 consecutive patients who underwent simultaneous bilateral carotid stenting. All of these patients were not deemed to be surgical candidates due to high-risk comorbidities. All but one of the lesions were successfully stented. There were no procedural deaths, myocardial infarctions, or strokes. Thus, among carefully selected patients, simultaneous bilateral carotid artery stenting is a promising, technically feasible option.     

外翻式颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉颅外段狭窄的疗效观察

目的观察外翻式颈动脉内膜切除术（eCEA）治疗颈动脉颅外段狭窄的临床疗效。方法选择狭窄率≥50％的有症状性颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者23例,采用eCEA术式行颈动脉内膜切除术,其中4例颈内动脉合并颈总动脉狭窄患者采用内膜切除器,行eCEA＋逆行性颈总动脉内膜切除术。所有患者均获得6个月临床及颈动脉超声、CT血管成像随访。结果23例患者斑块均被成功切除,术中无严重并发症。2例患者术后出现明显气管移位,7例术后出现声音嘶哑,均在术后3个月内恢复。4例患者术后72h内有短暂性脑缺血（TIA）发作,头部CT检查无梗死灶出现,经小剂量尿激酶治疗后恢复正常。无严重脑水肿、脑出血患者。术后随访6个月,13例因TIA发作入院的患者未再出现症状,其他原有临床症状均有不同程度的好转。复查颈动脉超声和CT血管成像,显示无一例患者出现颈动脉再次狭窄。结论eCEA治疗颈动脉颅外段狭窄安全、有效,短期疗效较好。     

颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉次全或完全闭塞的术后再通超声评估

目的应用血管超声对颈动脉次全或完全闭塞病变行颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)后再通患者的近、远期效果进行评估。方法回顾性连续纳入2005年1月—2014年1月在首都医科大学宣武医院经DSA确诊为颈动脉闭塞性病变,并接受CEA治疗的患者共107例,其中次全闭塞(颈动脉狭窄率95%~99%)63例,完全闭塞44例。记录所有患者围手术期并发症的发生情况。随访采用门诊随访、电话跟踪的方式,超声随访手术再通患者术后1周及3、6、12、24个月的情况,记录CEA术后患者临床预后、血管再狭窄、血管结构及血流动力学的改变。结果 (1)107例患者手术后再通86例(80.4%),未通21例(19.6%)。术后30d内卒中及死亡发生率为4.7%(5例),其中次全闭塞组发生率为4.8%(3例),完全闭塞组为4.5%(2例)。(2)术后1周内再通患者的患侧大脑中动脉收缩期峰值血流速度(PSV)、舒张期末血流速度(EDV)及血管搏动指数均较术前明显升高[分别为(120±39)cm/s比(60±17)cm/s,(50±18)cm/s比(33±11)cm/s和0.96±0.20比0.67±0.14]差异有统计学意义(均P0.01);颈动脉超声显示再通患者原病变局部血管内径均较术前增宽[分别为(4.4±1.1)和(3.6±1.0)mm)],差异有统计学意义(P0.01)。(3)超声随访颈动脉再通患者69例,时间为1~60个月,中位数为12个月。术后1~6个月血管通畅比率95.6%(66例),6~12个月血管通畅比率94.2%(65例),12~24个月血管通畅比率94.2%(65例),2年以上血管通畅比率91.3%(63例)。结论血管超声可对颈动脉闭塞性病变CEA后血管再通患者进行近期及远期的跟踪随访,判断血流改善程度,及时发现术后再狭窄。     

颈动脉狭窄处理进展

颈动脉狭窄是一种临床常见病,其治疗方法可分为药物治疗、颈动脉内膜切除术和颈动脉血管成形支架置入术3种.文章就颈动脉狭窄的处理进展进行了综述.     

颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉次全或完全闭塞患者的术中超声评估

目的分析颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)治疗颈动脉次全或完全闭塞术中超声监测血管结构、血流动力学改变与手术再通的相关性。方法回顾性纳入2005年1月—2014年1月在首都医科大学宣武医院经DSA确诊为颈动脉闭塞性病变,并接受CEA治疗的患者共107例。根据术中超声检查结果,分为血流再通组86例和未通组21例。对比分析两组患者术前及术中大脑中动脉的血流速度及搏动指数,记录术中颈动脉血管异常、血管残余狭窄率、再通患者病变血管内径及血流速度及搏动指数。结果 (1)颈动脉再通患者术中与术前患侧MCA的收缩期峰值流速(PSV)分别为(82±32)和(60±17)cm/s,平均流速(MV)分别为(50±19)和(42±13)cm/s,血管搏动指数(PI)分别为0.97±0.25和0.67±0.14,术中较术前明显升高,差异均有统计学意义(均P0.01);未通患者术中与术前MCA的PSV分别为(46±20)和(63±21)cm/s,EDV分别为(24±13)和(34±12)cm/s,MV分别为(32±16)和(44±15)cm/s,术中均较术前明显降低,差异均有统计学意义(均P0.01),但PI术中与术前比较差异无统计学意义(0.70±0.18和0.67±0.15,P=0.317)。(2)再通组病变血管内径术中较术前明显增宽[(3.4±0.9)和(0.6±0.4)mm,P=0.000]。术中超声检查发现再通者86例中血管结构轻度异常13例,未再通者均为血管结构显著异常。结论术中颈动脉超声结合经颅多普勒超声监测脑血流,可有效判断颈动脉血管结构及脑血管血流动力学的改善程度,及时指导术中二次修复。     

颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉次全或完全闭塞患者的术前超声评估

目的应用彩色多普勒血流显像(CDFI)及经颅多普勒超声(TCD)评估颈动脉次全或完全闭塞患者接受颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)前血管结构、血流动力学变化与血管再通的相关性。方法回顾性纳入2005年1月—2014年1月在首都医科大学宣武医院经DSA确诊为颈动脉次全闭塞(狭窄率95%~99%)或完全闭塞,并接受CEA治疗的患者共107例,平均年龄(61±9)岁。根据DSA结果,将107例患者分为颈动脉次全性闭塞组63例和颈动脉完全性闭塞组44例。记录两组患者术前病变各段血管内径、病变的位置(颈内动脉或颈总动脉)、管腔内回声特征及颈内-外动脉侧支循环是否开放、与血管再通的相关性。结果颈动脉完全性闭塞组患者远心段血管内径较次全性闭塞组明显增宽[(4.1±1.1)、(3.2±0.8)mm],两组差异有统计学意义(P0.01);闭塞位置与手术再通率差异无统计学意义(P=0.460);血管腔内均质回声(低回声与等回声)充填者的再通率[94.1%(16/17)和86.7%(13/15)]均明显高于不均质回声患者的再通率[0(0/12),P0.01]。在颈内动脉完全闭塞患者中,颈内-外侧支动脉开放时CEA的再通率增加[70.0%(14/20)比0%(0/3)]。总体比较,颈动脉次全性闭塞组较完全性闭塞组的再通比率明显升高[90.5%(57/63)比65.9%(29/44),P0.01]。结论颈动脉管径正常或增宽、闭塞管腔内均质回声及颈内-外动脉侧支开放与血管再通密切相关。术前超声检查对颈动脉闭塞性病变CEA实施后再通性的评估具有重要价值。     

颈动脉转流管在颈动脉内膜切除术中的临床应用

目的探讨颈动脉转流管在颈动脉内膜切除术（CEA）中的应用价值。 方法收集胜利油田中心医院神经外科&头颈血管外科2013年1月至2019年8月935例行CEA患者的临床资料,纳入统计标本的有304例症状性颈动脉重度狭窄合并颅内血流代偿较差的患者。术中行转流管转流的患者为转流管组（98例）,术中未行转流管转流的患者为对照组（206例）,通过比较2组患者术后症状改善率、术后并发症发生率及血管再狭窄发生率,对术中转流管的应用进行全面系统的研究。 结果转流管组和对照组的术中颈动脉阻断时间分别为（2.3±0.6）min和（13.6±8.2）min,术后出现颅脑过度灌注发生率分别为1.02%（1/98）和7.28%（15/206）,2组对比差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）;2组患者术后症状改善率、术后其他并发症发生率及血管再狭窄发生率比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。 结论对于症状性颈动脉重度狭窄合并颅内血管代偿较差的患者,CEA中转流管的熟练应用是安全可靠的。     

Safety of carotid artery stenting for symptomatic carotid artery disease: a meta-analysis.

AIMS: Clinical trials comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with symptomatic carotid artery disease have produced conflicting results. We performed a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate currently available data by comparing CAS with CEA in patients with symptomatic carotid artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, Current Contents, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and scientific meeting abstracts up to 31 October 2006 and then calculated summary risk ratios (RRs) for mortality, stroke, disabling stroke, and death using random- and fixed-effect models. Data from five trials with 2122 patients were pooled. There was no difference in risk of 30-day mortality (summary RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.22-1.47, P = 0.25), stroke (summary RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.67-4.00, P = 0.34), disabling stroke (summary RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.50-5.62, P = 0.50), death and stroke (summary RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.81-2.92, P = 0.19), or death and disabling stroke (summary RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.57-2.51, P = 0.64) among patients randomized to CAS, compared with CEA. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences could be identified between CAS and CEA in the treatment of patients with symptomatic carotid artery disease. Larger randomized controlled trials are warranted to compare the two strategies.     

单中心颈动脉狭窄患者支架植入术的远期疗效

目的探讨颈动脉狭窄患者行支架植入术的安全性及近、远期疗效。方法回顾性分析2005年1月至2010年12月在沈阳军区总医院住院的48例颈动脉狭窄患者,在远端脑保护装置下植入颈动脉支架,观察其围术期并发症及临床疗效。结果48例颈动脉狭窄患者,年龄（66±6.8）岁,男41例（85.4%,41/48）,靶病变1处/例,病变长度（22.5±10.3）mm,狭窄程度88.5%±9.9%。手术成功率100%,植入颈动脉自膨式支架1枚/例,使用远端滤网保护装置1个/例,支架直径（7.3±2.4）mm,长度（36.0±5.5）mm,术后即刻残余狭窄程度5.6%±4.5%。术中11例（22.9%,11/48）出现心率减慢,于术中给予1 mg阿托品静脉注射,心率恢复至正常范围。2例（4.2%,2/48）出现一侧肢体活动障碍,经治疗24 h后好转,术后无严重并发症发生。随访（36.2±15.5）个月,随访率93.8%（45/48）,2例（4.4%,2/48）患者死亡,其中1例死于肺癌,1例死于缺血性脑卒中,4例（8.9%,4/48）患者仍有头晕发作,3例（6.7%,3/48）偶有肢体麻木,无严重脑缺血发作,无脑梗死、脑出血发生。术后6～12个月复查增强计算机断层扫描：无颈动脉、椎动脉及肾动脉支架内再狭窄。结论在远端脑保护装置下行颈动脉支架植入术是治疗颈动脉狭窄安全有效的手段,手术成功率高,长期临床随访患者仍能从中获益。     

30例颈动脉内膜剥脱术的临床总结

目的:对颈动脉内膜剥脱术预防和治疗缺血性脑卒中的临床疗效进行评价,并提出主要外科技术及手术指征。方法:2009年1月至2012年1月收治的患者30例,且根据所有患者的临床表现以及颈部血管多普勒超声、数字减影(DSA)、CT血管造影(CTA)等检查可确诊为脑卒中。对所有患者行颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA),绝大多数病例均采用全麻,几乎所有病例均采用转流管维持脑部供血,剥离颈动脉斑块。结果:随访6～24个月,30例患者术后恢复良好,脑缺血症状有明显改善,所有患者围手术期内均未出现死亡及脑卒中事件,并且在术后1年的随访中均未出现脑卒中,未出现严重并发症,且患者的生活质量有明显改善。结论:颈动脉内膜剥脱术对预防和治疗缺血性脑卒中是安全有效的。     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术对缺血性脑卒中的防治效果分析

目的总结颈动脉内膜剥脱术对防治缺血性脑卒中的经验。方法对196例患者进行颈动脉内膜剥脱术,均为单侧。术中应用颈动脉转流管47例,阻断血流149例。术前均经颈动脉造影检查,选择颈内动脉狭窄〉70％者133例,〉95％者63例。71例患者并存冠状动脉病变,17例同台行冠状动脉搭桥。结果术后临床症状改善满意191例,术后1周内出现脑出血3例,经开颅止血引流,痊愈1例,死亡2例。出现颈部切口内血肿12例,再手术清创止血获愈。随访6～60个月,获得随访166例,失访28例,死于其他疾病或灾祸38例,元脑缺血症状再发作128例。结论颈动脉内膜剥脱术是治疗颈动脉重度狭窄的一种有效、安全术式。     

Carotid artery surgery vs. stent: a cardiovascular perspective.

Stroke is a major health catastrophe that is responsible for the third most common cause of death and the leading cause of disability. Carotid artery stenosis is an important cause of brain infarctions and the risk of stroke is directly related to the severity of carotid artery stenosis and to the presence of symptoms. Familiarity with different methods of measuring degrees of carotid artery stenosis is a key in understanding the role of revascularization of this disorder. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA), surgical removal of the carotid atherosclerotic plaque, is intended to prevent stroke in patients with carotid artery stenosis and currently the most commonly performed vascular procedure in the United States. Several randomized clinical trials had demonstrated the benefits of CEA in selected groups of patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. However, CEA can cause stroke, the very thing it intended to prevent, and is associated with significant perioperative complications such as those related to general anesthesia, cardiac or nerve injury. Moreover, several anatomical and medical conditions may limit candidates for CEA. Carotid artery stenting (CS) is an evolving and less invasive technique for carotid artery revascularization. Recent studies demonstrated that CS with embolic protection devices has become an alternative to CEA for high-surgical-risk patients and the procedure of choice for stenoses inaccessible by surgery. The role of CS in low risk patients awaits the completion of several ongoing studies.     

Transpharyngeal echocardiographic detection of a left internal carotid artery stent

This case report describes a patient in whom a left internal carotid (LIC) artery stent was detected using a transpharyngeal approach during a transesophageal echocardiographic (TEE) study. Using pulsed-Doppler interrogation, flow through and beyond the stent was characterized and restenosis was ruled out.     

同时患有颈动脉和冠状动脉疾病的患者应先行颈动脉内膜切除术或支架置入术吗?

颈动脉与冠状动脉粥样硬化性病变常常并存.如何处理这2种病变,特别是为了降低围手术期卒中风险,是否有必要在冠状动脉旁路移植术前或同时对颈动脉病变进行治疗,在治疗颈动脉时支架置入血管成形术是否可取代颈动脉内膜切除术等,一直存在争论.文章就此进行了讨论.     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术和支架成形术治疗颈动脉狭窄的临床研究

目的探讨颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)和颈动脉支架成形术(CAS)治疗颈动脉狭窄的临床价值。方法选择颈动脉狭窄患者43例,分为CEA组20例和CAS组23例,分析比较CEA和CAS 2种治疗方法的疗效。结果 CEA组成功率为95%,术后随访2年,再狭窄率为10%;CAS组成功率为100%,术后随访2年,发生再狭窄率为13%,2组的手术成功率和术后再狭窄率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 CEA和CAS是治疗颈动脉狭窄的有效方法,两者在安全性和有效性方面相同。     

Guidelines for patient selection and performance of carotid artery stenting

The endovascular treatment of carotid atherosclerosis with carotid artery stenting (CAS) is controversial. The inter-collegiate Carotid Stenting Guidelines Committee (CSGC) recommends that CAS should not be performed in the majority of patients requiring carotid revascularization. CAS may be considered for specific high risk patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis who have contraindications for carotid endarterectomy, or in those under 70years of age where carotid re-vascularization is considered appropriate. Advances in endovascular technologies and the long-term results of randomized controlled trials will guide future revisions of these guidelines.     

Outcomes for overlapping stents in the extracranial carotid artery.

Various diseases of the carotid artery are treatable by stenting. However, few reports of overlapping carotid stents exist. As a result, the indications, long-term outcomes, and potential complications of this technique remain largely unknown. We therefore present and examine a series of 11 patients treated by this unique stenting method. A retrospective single-institution review was performed for patients in whom overlapping carotid stents were placed. Only patients with imaging follow-up beyond 3 months were included. Of 38 patients who had extracranial carotid artery stents placed, 11 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria for both overlapping stents and imaging follow-up greater than 3 months (range, 0.4-3 years; mean, 1.3 years). Clinical follow-up ranged between 0.4 and 3.6 years (mean, 2.1 years). Carotid pathology within this cohort included atheromatous stenosis (n = 3), recurrent stenosis following carotid endarterectomy (n = 2) or stenting (n = 1), postirradiation angiitis (n = 1), carotid artery kink created by initial stent placement (n = 2), and both traumatic (n = 1) and neoplastic (n = 1) carotid blowout syndrome. No permanent stroke or stenting-related death occurred. Focal stenosis or intimal hyperplasia resulting in 35% or less luminal narrowing developed in three patients (27%) after tandem stenting. Overlapping stents provide a durable treatment for a variety of extracranial carotid pathologies. Clinically and hemodynamically significant (> 50%) poststenting stenosis or intimal hyperplasia did not occur in this series.     

Concurrent coronary and carotid artery surgery: factors influencing perioperative outcome and long-term results.

AIMS: To assess risk factors for early and late outcome after concurrent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS AND RESULTS: Records of all 311 consecutive patients having concurrent CEA and CABG from 1989 to 2002 were reviewed, and follow-up obtained (100% complete). In the group (mean age 67 years; 74% males), 62% had triple-vessel disease, 57% unstable angina, 31% left main coronary stenosis, 19% congestive heart failure, and 35% either a history of vascular procedures or existing vasculopathies. Preoperative assessment revealed transient ischaemic attack in 16%, stroke in 7%, and bilateral carotid disease in 20%. There were 7% emergent and 19% urgent operations, and ascending aorta was described as atheromatous or calcified in 21%. Hospital death occurred in 19 patients, myocardial infarction in seven, and permanent stroke in 12. Significant multivariable predictors of hospital death were aortic calcifications, coexisting vasculopathy, and emergent procedure. Significant predictors of postoperative stroke were calcified or dilated aorta, and of prolonged hospital stay were advanced age, unstable angina, and coexisting vascular disease. For hospital survivors, 10-year actuarial late event-free rates were: death, 50%; myocardial infarction, 84%; stroke, 93%; percutaneous angioplasty, 95%; redo CABG, 98%; and all morbidity and mortality, 48%. Significant multivariable predictors of late deaths were coexisting vasculopathy, age, renal insufficiency, previous cardiac surgery, tobacco abuse, calcified or atheromatous aorta, and duration of intensive care unit stay. CONCLUSION: Concurrent CEA and CABG can be performed with acceptable operative mortality and morbidity, and good long-term freedom from coronary and neurologic events. Atheromatous aortic disease is a harbinger of poor operative and long-term outcome.