Carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: randomized trial in a community hospital.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine whether carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is equivalent to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis >70% by a randomized, controlled trial in a community hospital. BACKGROUND: Carotid angioplasty and stenting has been suggested to be as effective as CEA for treatment of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: A total of 104 patients presenting with cerebrovascular ischemia ipsilateral to carotid stenosis were selected randomly for CEA or carotid stenting and followed for two years. 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 sequential ultrasound. One death occurred in the CEA group (1/51); one transient ischemic attack occurred in the CAS group (1/53); no individual sustained a stroke. The perception of procedurally related pain/discomfort was similar. Hospital stay was similar, although the CAS group tended to be discharged earlier (mean = 1.8 days vs. 2.7 days). Complications associated with CAS prolonged hospitalization when compared with those sustaining a CEA-related complication (mean = 5.6 days vs. 3.8 days). Return to full activity was achieved within one week by 80% of the CAS group and 67% of the patients receiving CEA. Hospital charges were slightly higher for CAS. CONCLUSIONS: Carotid stenting is equivalent to CEA in reducing carotid stenosis without increased risk for major complications of death/stroke. Because of shortened hospitalization and convalescence, CAS challenges CEA as the preferred treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis if a reduction in costs can be achieved.     

Comparative Review of the Treatment Methodologies of Carotid Stenosis

The treatment of carotid stenosis entails three methodologies, namely, medical management, carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), as well as carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) and European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST) have shown that symptomatic carotid stenosis greater than 70% is best treated with CEA. In asymptomatic patients with carotid stenosis greater than 60%, CEA was more beneficial than treatment with aspirin alone according to the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis (ACAS) and Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial (ACST) trials. When CAS is compared with CEA, the CREST resulted in similar rates of ipsilateral stroke and death rates regardless of symptoms. However, CAS not only increased adverse effects in women, it also amplified stroke rates and death in elderly patients compared with CEA. CAS can maximize its utility in treating focal restenosis after CEA and patients with overwhelming cardiac risk or prior neck irradiation. When performing CEA, using a patch was equated to a more durable result than primary closure, whereas eversion technique is a new methodology deserving a spotlight. Comparing the three major treatment strategies of carotid stenosis has intrinsic drawbacks, as most trials are outdated and they vary in their premises, definitions, and study designs. With the newly codified best medical management including antiplatelet therapies with aspirin and clopidogrel, statin, antihypertensive agents, strict diabetes control, smoking cessation, and life style change, the current trials may demonstrate that asymptomatic carotid stenosis is best treated with best medical therapy. The ongoing trials will illuminate and reshape the treatment paradigm for symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis.     

Carotid Artery Stenting for Stroke Prevention

Stroke is a global epidemic with a significant economic burden to patients, families, and societies at large. In the industrialized world, stroke is the third most common cause of death, the second most common cause of dementia, and the most common reason for acquired disability in adulthood. Overall, 20%-30% of ischemic strokes are related to extracranial carotid artery stenosis. Revascularization with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the gold-standard treatment for patients with significant carotid stenosis. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has become an accepted alternative to CEA over the past decade for patients at high surgical risk, and has progressively evolved into an elegant procedure over the past 3 decades, with dedicated equipment including proximal embolic occlusion devices that have minimized procedural strokes. High–surgical-risk CAS registries have established this procedure as an alternative to CEA for high-risk patients. The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stent Trial (CREST) has shown similar outcomes with CAS and CEA for patients at standard risk, although CAS is associated with higher minor stroke events and CEA is associated with higher myocardial infarction (MI) events. However, CAS is technically challenging and requires a meticulous approach, with a protracted learning curve that should involve experience with > 70 cases. Careful patient selection is instrumental in avoiding procedural complications, and the procedure should be avoided in patients with prohibitive anatomy. This article reviews the use of CAS for extracranial carotid artery stenosis, considering technical aspects, registry and clinical trial outcomes data, determinants of success, and contemporary guidelines.     

颈动脉狭窄患者的脑功能储备评价

颈动脉支架置入术（CAS）和颈动脉内膜切除术（QEA）是目前颈动脉狭窄患者最主要的非药物治疗方法。评价颈动脉狭窄患者的脑功能储备,不仅能筛选出近期可能面临卒中的高危患者,而且还能对无症状颈动脉狭窄患者行CEA和CAS的纳入标准进行修正,从而为患者提供最佳的治疗方案。文章对颈动脉狭窄患者的脑功能储备评价和MRI在其中的应用做了综述。     

颈动脉支架与内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄疗效和安全性的Meta分析

目的 系统评价颈动脉支架(carotid artery stenting,CAS)和颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)治疗颈动脉狭窄的安全性和疗效.方法 计算机检索PubMed、EMbase、Cochrane图书馆临床对照试验资料库、中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、中文科技期刊数据库(VIP)以及万方医学数据库,并辅以手工检索,收集CAS和CEA治疗颈动脉狭窄的随机对照试验,采用Cochrane协作网提供的RevMan 5.0.24软件进行Meta分析.结果 共纳入12个研究,6903例患者,其中CAS组3460例,CEA组3443例.CAS组术后30 d脑卒中或死亡联合发生风险(RR=1.64,95%CI:1.33～2.03,P＜0.00001)以及脑卒中风险(RR=1.70,95%CI:1.34～2.14,P＜0.00001)高于CEA组;CEA组术后30 d心肌梗死风险(RR=0.62,95%CI:0.39～0.97,P=0.04)和颅神经损伤风险(RR=0.07,95%CI:0.03～0.16,P＜0.00001)高于CAS组;两组术后30 d死亡风险(RR=1.33,95%CI:0.78～2.28,P=0.29)、致残性脑卒中风险(RR=1.27,95%CI:0.82～1.96,P=0.29)和术后1年脑卒中或死亡联合发生风险(RR=0.96,95%CI:0.63～1.46,P=0.84)差异无统计学意义.结论 从安全性方面考虑,对于一般手术风险的颈动脉狭窄患者,CEA仍是治疗颈动脉狭窄的首选治疗手段.具有手术高危因素或不适合手术的患者,CAS治疗更具有优势.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the safety and efficacy of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy(CEA) for the treatment of carotid stenosis. Methods The electronic databases (PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CNKI, VIP and Wanfang) were searched in order to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about comparing CAS and CEA for the treatment of carotid stenosis. Cochrane collaboration's RevMan 5.0.24 were used for analyzing data. Results Twelve RCTs totalling 6903 patients (3460 patients were randomized to CAS and 3443 randomized to CEA) with symptomatic or asymptomatic stenosis were included in the meta-analysis. There were significantly higher 30-day relative risks after CAS than after CEA for death or any stroke [RR=1.64, 95%CI (1.33-2.03), P＜0.00001] and for stroke [RR=1.70, 95%CI (1.34-2.14), P＜0.00001]. The relative risks of myocardial infarction [RR=0.62, 95%CI (0.39-0.97), P=0.04] and cranial neuropathy [RR=0.07, 95%CI (0.03-0.16), P＜0.00001] was significantly less after CAS than after CEA. The relative risks of death [RR=1.27, 95%CI (0.82-1.96), P=0.29] or disabling stroke within 30 days [RR=1.33, 95%CI (0.78-2.28), P=0.29] and any stroke or death at 1 year after the procedures [RR=0.96, 95%CI (0.63-1.46), P=0.84] did not differ significantly between CAS and CEA operation. Conclusions CEA remains the first choice for treatment of carotid stenosis for patients with low surgery risk. For patients with high surgery risk and unsuitable for surgery, CAS has more advantages. It is reasonable to view CAS and CEA as complementary rather than competing modes of therapy.     

颈动脉血管成形术和颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄近期疗效的Meta分析

目的评价颈动脉血管成形术和颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄的近期临床疗效和安全性。方法电子检索中国学术期刊网全文数据库(1996—2006年)、MEDLINE(1996—2006年)和Cochrane图书馆(2006年12月前已发表的文献和已注册但未发表的临床试验),并与研究者取得联系获得更多的相关研究资料。纳入比较颈动脉血管成形术和内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄的随机对照试验,比较两种治疗方法术后30d内卒中发生率和卒中与死亡的联合发生率。以卒中发生率作为疗效评价指标,以卒中和死亡的联合发生率作为安全性评价指标。2名评价员独立检索和提取资料,对纳入试验的方法学质量进行评价,数据采用RevMan4.2.10版软件进行统计分析。结果在术后30d内的卒中发生率方面,共纳入7项临床试验的2747例患者,其中颈动脉血管成形术组1381例,颈动脉内膜切除术组1366例。在术后30d的卒中和死亡的联合发生率方面,纳入8项临床试验,共2966例患者,其中颈动脉血管成形术组1488例,颈动脉内膜切除术组1478例。Meta分析结果显示,在术后30d内的卒中发生率方面,颈动脉血管成形术略高于颈动脉内膜切除术(OR:1.44;95%CI:1.05~1.97,Z=2.28,P=0.02);在术后30d内卒中和死亡的联合发生率方面,颈动脉血管成形术与颈动脉内膜切除术间差异无统计学意义(OR:1.50;95%CI:0.89~2.52,Z=1.51,P=0.13)。结论现有临床研究资料显示,在目前的技术条件下,颈动脉血管成形术在治疗颈动脉狭窄的近期疗效方面未显示优于内膜切除术;而在治疗的安全性方面,两者间差异无统计学意义。     

Mandatory Diagnostic Angiography for Carotid Artery Stenosis Prior to Carotid Artery Intervention

Introduction: Revascularization is an important strategy for reducing stroke risk in patients with severe carotid atherosclerosis. Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and/or carotid ultrasound have traditionally been used as the only diagnostic modalities prior to revascularization. Patients undergoing CEA frequently have no further assessments of carotid anatomy prior to surgery. Evaluation with carotid ultrasound and MRA can often overestimate the degree of stenosis. We sought to determine if noninvasive imaging was sufficient for determining whether a patient should be referred for carotid intervention.
Methods: We performed an analysis of 101 patients referred for carotid artery stenting (CAS). All patients had previously been evaluated with carotid ultrasound and 94% had undergone MRA as well. We sought to determine if noninvasive diagnostic imaging for carotid stenosis was sufficient to determine the necessity for endovascular intervention.
Results: Of the 101 patients referred for carotid intervention, 36 (36%) were shown to have <70% stenoses and did not require intervention. Of those who had significant disease, 49 (75%) underwent successful CAS, 15 (23%) underwent CEA, and 1 patient was treated medically for a total occlusion. Three of the 36 patients not requiring carotid intervention were found to have subclavian stenosis. Two (4%) of the patients undergoing CAS and 4 (27%) of the patients undergoing CEA had minor complications. No patients suffered a major stroke, MI, or death at follow-up.
Conclusion: This analysis demonstrates that 36% of patients referred for endovascular intervention based on noninvasive imaging did not meet criteria by angiography. This emphasizes the need for carotid angiography prior to carotid intervention.     

Contemporary management of concomitant carotid and coronary artery disease

The best approach to the management of concomitant severe carotid and coronary artery disease remains unanswered. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines recommend carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in asymptomatic carotid stenosis of ≥ 80% either prior to or combined with coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). Currently, there is no consensus as to which surgical approach is superior. More recently, carotid artery stenting (CAS) prior to CABG is emerging as an alternative option with promising results in asymptomatic patients considered 'high risk' for CEA. A <3% composite event rate has been set as a benchmark for isolated CAS or CEA in asymptomatic patients by the ACC/AHA; however, most CEA or CAS studies in patients requiring concomitant CABG have shown event rates ranging from 10-12%. This review examines the available data on carotid revascularisation in relation to CABG surgery to aid in the risk-benefit decision analysis in this controversial area.     

Fate of the external carotid artery following carotid interventions

OBJECTIVE:

The external carotid artery (ECA) is an important collateral pathway for cerebral blood flow. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) typically crosses the ECA, while carotid endarterectomy (CEA) includes deliberate ECA plaque removal. The purpose of the present study was to compare the long-term patency of the ECA following CAS and CEA as determined by carotid duplex ultrasound.

METHODS:

Duplex ultrasounds and hospital records were reviewed for consecutive patients undergoing CAS between February 2002 and April 2008, and were compared with those undergoing CEA in the same time period. Preoperative and postoperative ECA peak systolic velocities were normalized to the common carotid artery (CCA) as ECA/CCA ratios. A significant (80% or greater) ECA stenosis was defined as an ECA/CCA ratio of 4.0. A change of ratio by more than 1 was defined as significant. Data were analyzed using Student’s t test and χ² analysis.

RESULTS:

A total of 86 CAS procedures in 83 patients were performed (81 men, mean age 69.9 years). Among them, 38.4% of patients had previous CEA, 9.6% of whom had contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion. Sixty-seven CAS and 65 CEA patients with complete duplex data in the same time period were included in the analyses. There was no difference in the incidence of severe ECA stenosis on preoperative ultrasound evaluations. During a mean follow-up of 34 months (range four to 78 months), three postprocedure ECA occlusions were found in the CAS group. The likelihood of severe stenosis or occlusion following CAS was 28.3%, compared with 11% following CEA (P<0.025). However, 62% of CEA patients and 57% of CAS patients had no significant change in ECA status. Reduction in the patient’s degree of ECA stenosis was observed in 9.4% of CAS versus 26.6% of CEA patients. Overall, immediate postoperative ratios of both groups were slightly improved, but there was a trend of more disease progression in the CAS group during follow-up.

CONCLUSION:

CAS is associated with a higher incidence of post-procedure ECA stenosis. Despite the absence of neurological symptoms, a trend toward late disease progression of ECA following CAS warrants long-term evaluation.     

颈动脉内膜切除术和支架置入术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗

作为一种经典的血管重建方式,颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)已被广泛用于颅外颈动脉重度狭窄的治疗.近年来,颈动脉支架置入术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)已有逐步取代CEA的趋势.大量临床研究发现,除围手术期并发症外,CEA和CAS后颈动脉再狭窄对患者的预后也具有重要影响.文章就CEA和CAS术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗研究现状做了综述.     

颈动脉内膜切除术和支架置入术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗

作为一种经典的血管重建方式,颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)已被广泛用于颅外颈动脉重度狭窄的治疗.近年来,颈动脉支架置入术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)已有逐步取代CEA的趋势.大量临床研究发现,除围手术期并发症外,CEA和CAS后颈动脉再狭窄对患者的预后也具有重要影响.文章就CEA和CAS术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗研究现状做了综述.     

颈动脉内膜切除术和支架置入术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗

作为一种经典的血管重建方式,颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)已被广泛用于颅外颈动脉重度狭窄的治疗.近年来,颈动脉支架置入术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)已有逐步取代CEA的趋势.大量临床研究发现,除围手术期并发症外,CEA和CAS后颈动脉再狭窄对患者的预后也具有重要影响.文章就CEA和CAS术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗研究现状做了综述.     

颈动脉内膜切除术和支架置入术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗

作为一种经典的血管重建方式,颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)已被广泛用于颅外颈动脉重度狭窄的治疗.近年来,颈动脉支架置入术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)已有逐步取代CEA的趋势.大量临床研究发现,除围手术期并发症外,CEA和CAS后颈动脉再狭窄对患者的预后也具有重要影响.文章就CEA和CAS术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗研究现状做了综述.     

颈动脉内膜切除术和支架置入术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗

作为一种经典的血管重建方式,颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)已被广泛用于颅外颈动脉重度狭窄的治疗.近年来,颈动脉支架置入术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)已有逐步取代CEA的趋势.大量临床研究发现,除围手术期并发症外,CEA和CAS后颈动脉再狭窄对患者的预后也具有重要影响.文章就CEA和CAS术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗研究现状做了综述.     

颈动脉内膜切除术和支架置入术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗

作为一种经典的血管重建方式,颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)已被广泛用于颅外颈动脉重度狭窄的治疗.近年来,颈动脉支架置入术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)已有逐步取代CEA的趋势.大量临床研究发现,除围手术期并发症外,CEA和CAS后颈动脉再狭窄对患者的预后也具有重要影响.文章就CEA和CAS术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗研究现状做了综述.     

Percutaneous versus surgical revascularization for symptomatic carotid artery disease

Stroke is the third leading cause of death worldwide and the number one disease associated with permanent disability. In 2006, the estimated total cost of stroke in the United States was a staggering $60 billion. Significant stenosis of the internal carotid artery is responsible for 10% to 20% of all strokes, and current recommendations suggest that patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis undergo revascularization for stroke prevention or risk reduction. Since the 1950s, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been the dominant modality of revascularization. However, carotid artery angioplasty, introduced in the 1980s, and subsequent carotid artery stenting (CAS), have greatly improved in recent years and provide a viable alternative to CEA, particularly for certain high-risk patients. Encouraging results from clinical studies of CAS and CEA have played pivotal roles in shaping current practice guidelines. We review the published studies on CAS and discuss appropriate use of this procedure for symptomatic carotid artery disease.     

颈动脉内膜切除术和支架置入术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗

作为一种经典的血管重建方式,颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)已被广泛用于颅外颈动脉重度狭窄的治疗.近年来,颈动脉支架置入术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)已有逐步取代CEA的趋势.大量临床研究发现,除围手术期并发症外,CEA和CAS后颈动脉再狭窄对患者的预后也具有重要影响.文章就CEA和CAS术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗研究现状做了综述.     

颈动脉内膜切除术和支架置入术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗

作为一种经典的血管重建方式,颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)已被广泛用于颅外颈动脉重度狭窄的治疗.近年来,颈动脉支架置入术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)已有逐步取代CEA的趋势.大量临床研究发现,除围手术期并发症外,CEA和CAS后颈动脉再狭窄对患者的预后也具有重要影响.文章就CEA和CAS术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗研究现状做了综述.     

颈动脉内膜切除术和支架置入术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗

作为一种经典的血管重建方式,颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)已被广泛用于颅外颈动脉重度狭窄的治疗.近年来,颈动脉支架置入术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)已有逐步取代CEA的趋势.大量临床研究发现,除围手术期并发症外,CEA和CAS后颈动脉再狭窄对患者的预后也具有重要影响.文章就CEA和CAS术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗研究现状做了综述.     

颈动脉内膜切除术和支架置入术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗

作为一种经典的血管重建方式,颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)已被广泛用于颅外颈动脉重度狭窄的治疗.近年来,颈动脉支架置入术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)已有逐步取代CEA的趋势.大量临床研究发现,除围手术期并发症外,CEA和CAS后颈动脉再狭窄对患者的预后也具有重要影响.文章就CEA和CAS术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗研究现状做了综述.