Carotid endarterectomy versus angioplasty/stenting for carotid stenosis

Carotid occlusive disease remains an important cause of ischemic stroke. The results of large, randomized clinical trials have established the benefit of surgical revascularization in selected patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The introduction of balloon angioplasty and stenting of the extracranial carotid artery as a potential alternative to surgery has been received with enthusiasm by patients and physicians alike. Whether or not this enthusiasm is fully justified has yet to be determined. This article reviews published data regarding the safety and clinical efficacy of carotid angioplasty and stenting. Particular focus is directed towards results from recently completed and ongoing prospective comparative trials of endarterectomy and carotid angioplasty and stenting.     

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.     

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。     

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。     

Stent-supported angioplasty versus endarterectomy for carotid artery stenosis: evidence from current randomized trials

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid artery stenoses is evolving as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, the value of CAS is still a matter of debate. Therefore, we performed a metaanalysis of the randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) on this issue. METHODS: RCTs were identified through searching MEDLINE, textbooks and by personal communication. RESULTS: Six finished RCTs on this issue could be identified, including 1263 patients, 628 randomized to CAS and 635 to CEA. The 30-day death or stroke rate was 8.0% (50/628) in patients treated with CAS compared to 6.1% (39/635) in CEA patients (OR=1.36, 95% CI: 0.88-2.11; p=0.17; p for heterogeneity=0.009). The rate of cranial nerve palsy was 7.1% in the CEA compared to 0% in the CAS group (p<0.0001). The rate of myocardial infarctions was reduced from 3.1 to 1% (OR=0.32, 95% CI: 0.12- 0.81; p=0.02; p for heterogeneity=0.49). The death or stroke rate during follow-up was 12.1% in patients treated with CAS compared to 12.2% in CEA patients (OR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.70-1.42; p=0.98; p for heterogeneity=0.02). CONCLUSION: The available RCT data on CAS vs. CEA suggest that both methods seem to be equally effective concerning short- and medium-term results, while CAS is associated with lower minor complications than CEA. However, because of the significant heterogeneity between the study outcomes, the results of the large RCTs underway should be awaited before it can be advised to use CAS in a broader perspective.     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术与颈动脉支架成形术的优劣比较

<正> 颈动脉狭窄和闭塞是缺血性脑卒中常见原因之一,缺血性脑卒中有15%～20%是因颈动脉颅外段狭窄所致。据不完全统计,症状性颈动脉高度狭窄患者年脑卒中发生率达10%～17%,颈动脉中度以上狭窄患者年脑卒中发生率达2%。对于颈动脉狭窄的治疗,近几年采用的方法有颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)和颈动脉支架成形术(CAS),究竟哪种治疗方法更好,仍然是当今医学界所争论的一个热点话题。 1 针对CEA和CAS的循证医学研究已经有大量的循证医学研究[包括北美有症状颈动脉内膜剥脱试验协作组(NASCET),无症状性颈动脉粥样硬化研究(ACAS)和欧州颈动脉外科试验(ECST)]都证实,CEA是     

颈动脉支架置入术与内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄的远期转归比较:随机对照试验的汇总分析

目的 通过汇总分析评价颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy, CEA)与颈动脉支架置入术(carotid artery stenting, CAS)治疗颈动脉狭窄的远期转归.方法 检索PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane数据库,纳入在颈动脉狭窄患者中比较CEA与CAS治疗的随机对照试验,提取研究基本特征以及远期转归,包括卒中或死亡联合终点、任何卒中、任何死亡等数据,应用Stata软件进行统计分析.结果 共纳入7项随机对照试验和8 210例患者,随访时间中位数为2~7.4年.纳入研究的质量整体较高,产生偏倚的风险较低.汇总分析显示,CAS组卒中或死亡联合终点[风险比(hazard risk, HR) 1.21,95% CI 1.04~1.39]、任何卒中(HR 1.32,95% CI 1.15~1.51)和同侧卒中(HR 1.26,95% CI 1.02~1.55)风险显著高于CEA组;CAS组死亡(HR 1.06,95% CI 0.95~1.18)、致残性卒中(HR 1.23,95% CI 0.95~1.60)、非同侧卒中(HR 1.12,95% CI 0.81~1.55)和再狭窄(HR 1.18,95% CI 0.91~1.52)风险均与CEA组无显著性差异,但.结论 CAS在远期死亡、致残性卒中、非同侧卒中和再狭窄风险方面与CEA相近,但CAS的远期卒中或死亡联合终点、任何卒中和同侧卒中风险显著更高.这些结果提示,CEA仍是颈动脉狭窄的治疗选择.     

Carotid endarterectomy with simultaneous retrograde common carotid artery stenting: Technical Considerations

Carotid endarterectomy with simultaneous retrograde common carotid artery stenting (CEA‐RCCAS) is performed with increasing frequency to treat tandem common and internal carotid artery stenoses. Technical details are not clearly delineated in the literature. Our procedure aims to maximize procedural ease and cerebral protection. Although the need for the endovascular component being performed first, followed by shunt placement, and the use of short wires and sheaths has been advocated, we describe the avoidance of shunt placement and the use of long sheaths to facilitate the procedure using local anesthesia and cervical blockade. Use of local anesthesia, avoidance of a shunt, and use of a long sheath may increase the procedural applicability and safety in some patients. CEA‐RCCAS permits safe simultaneous treatment of tandem common and internal carotid artery stenoses. The use of technical adjuncts described here will permit further expansion of the procedure to allow additional patients to be treated in this hybrid fashion. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Patient selection for revascularization in cervical carotid artery disease: angioplasty and stenting vs. endarterectomy

Cervical carotid stenosis is a major cause of stroke and disability. Although carotid endarterectomy is an established and effective treatment for some patients with carotid artery stenosis, angioplasty and stenting has emerged in recent years as a viable alternative, particularly for patients who may be less suited for surgery. This article reviews patient selection for the two alternative approaches. The authors review the findings of the major clinical trials of carotid endarterectomy, summarize the development of carotid angioplasty and stenting, and identify patient characteristics that may guide selection of surgical or endovascular treatment.     

Carotid endarterectomy in octagenarians and nonagenarians in a community hospital: An outcome analysis

Carotid endarterectomy in very elderly patients remains controversial. We report our experience with this operation on 101 very elderly patients at the Baptist Heart Institute, a community hospital in Lexington, Kentucky. Ages ranged from 80 to 93 years with an average age of 86.5 years. There are 7 nonagenarians in this study. The indications included asymptomatic severe carotid artery stenosis in 29 (29.7%) patients and symptomatic disease in 72 patients (71.3%). Sixty eight percent of the patients had significant co-morbidity that included hypertension, diabetes mellitus, lipid disorders, previous stroke, previous carotid endarterectomy, coronary artery disease and previous myocardial infarctions. Thirty two percent of the patients had no significant past medical history. Two deaths occurred during hospitalizations (1.98%). One of these patients had carotid endarterectomy in conjunction with coronary artery bypass grafting. This patient suffered a stroke. The second death occurred as the result of respiratory failure. There was 1 perioperative infarct. From this study, we conclude that carotid endarterectomy can be performed safely in very elderly patients in a community hospital.     

Differential effects of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy on external carotid artery patency.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of stent coverage of the external carotid artery (ECA) after carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared to eversion endarterectomy of the ECA after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: The records of 101 CAS and 165 CEA procedures performed over 2 years were reviewed. Duplex velocities and history and physical examinations were taken prior to the procedure, at 1 month, and at 6-month intervals subsequently. CAS was performed by extending the stent across the internal carotid artery (ICA) lesion into the common carotid artery (CCA) thereby covering the ECA. CEA was performed with eversion endarterectomy of the ECA. RESULTS: The mean peak systolic velocities (PSV) in the ICA pre-CAS and pre-CEA were 361 and 352 cm/s, respectively. In terms of CAS, there was a significant increase in ECA velocities versus baseline at 12 (p = 0.009), 18 (p = 0.00001), and 24 (p = 0.005) months. In the CEA group, there was a significant decrease in ECA velocities versus baseline at 1 (p = 0.01) and 6 (p = 0.004) months. There were 2 occluded ECAs in follow-up in the CAS group and none in the CEA group. No significant differences were noted when comparing preprocedural ICA or ECA velocities. However, at the 1-, 6-, and 12-month intervals, the ECA velocities in the CAS group were significantly higher than in the CEA group (p = 0.03, p = 0.001, and p = 0.0004, respectively). There were no neurological symptoms in any patients during the study period. CONCLUSION: Although progressive stenosis of the ECA is noted during CAS, the ECA usually does not occlude. Furthermore, there are no associated neurological symptoms. Thus, apprehension for progressive ECA occlusion should not be a contraindication to CAS. In addition, concern for ECA coverage should not deter stent extension from the ICA to the CCA during CAS.     

Bilateral carotid angioplasty and stenting.

Bilateral carotid stenosis is generally treated by staged stenting procedure and rarely simultaneously due to concerns about hemodynamic impairment from stimulation of the carotid sinus baroreflex (severe bradycardia, hypotension) and the risk of cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome. Most of the accounts of bilateral carotid stenting are of small series. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of simultaneous bilateral carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) in comparison with staged procedure. We retrospectively analyzed the procedural outcome and complications of bilateral CAS done between February 1995 and June 2004 in a consecutive series of 57 high-risk patients. Mean age was 64 +/- 9 years (male, 43; female 14). One hundred fifteen arteries were treated (one patient had bilateral internal carotid artery stenosis associated to an ostial common carotid artery stenosis). Thirty-nine patients were symptomatic (70%). Thirty-six patients had severe coronary artery disease. Seventeen patients underwent a simultaneous bilateral CAS (group 1), 40 in a staged manner (group 2). Among these 40 patients 10 were treated with a time interval of 24 hr, while the 30 other ones were treated with a time interval of 2 days to 2 months. A neuroprotection device was used in the last 42 patients. There was technical success in all patients and transient bradycardia and/or hypotension in 25 patients (44%). There was no prolonged bradycardia or hypotension. At 30 days, we observed in group 1 (simultaneous bilateral CAS) no transient ischemic attack (TIA), no minor stroke, one (5.8%) major stroke (hyperperfusion syndrome with brain hemorrhage leading to death in a patient under IIb/IIIa inhibitors), one myocardial infarction leading to death, and two (11.7%) death/stroke/myocardial infarction; in group 2 (staged procedure), two (5%) TIAs, no minor stroke, no major stroke, and one (2.5%) hyperperfusion syndrome with rapid recovery. Among the 10 patients treated with a time interval of 24 hr, we observed one TIA. Among carefully selected patients, bilateral CAS is feasible simultaneously or the day after, with a safety and complication rate comparable to that of large published series of CAS or endarterectomies in high-risk patients. Nevertheless, careful monitoring of the patient, blood pressure, and heart rate is mandatory to avoid complications related to hyperperfusion syndrome. Routine use of neuroprotection device and meticulous technique should improve the outcomes of bilateral CAS.     

高危症状性颈动脉狭窄支架成形术的疗效分析

目的分析颈动脉支架成形术治疗高危症状性颈动脉狭窄的有效性和安全性。方法对20例高危症状性颈动脉狭窄患者进行颈动脉支架成形术治疗,其中男12例,女8例;年龄为62～76岁,平均69岁。其中短暂性脑缺血发作11例,脑梗死9例。对所有患者均行全脑血管造影,显示颈动脉狭窄率均〉70％,其中一侧颈动脉重度狭窄9例（2例为颈动脉剥脱术后再狭窄）;双侧颈动脉重度狭窄6例;一侧颈动脉闭塞,另--N重度狭窄5例（1例为鼻咽癌放疗术后）。对所有患者使用脑保护装置,并均采用预扩张,预扩张后均使用自膨式支架。结果技术成功率为100％,残余狭窄率均〈30％。所有患者术中均出现不同程度的短暂性心率、血压下降,1例患者出现了微栓子栓塞,无其他严重并发症;其余患者围手术期内无缺血性卒中发作。术后复查颈动脉超声见,显示狭窄明显改善。结论颈动脉支架治疗高危症状性颈动脉狭窄创伤小,围手术期并发症少,是安全、有效的。     

不符合NASCET纳入标准的高危有症状颈动脉狭窄患者的颈动脉成形支架置入术治疗

Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of carotid angioplasty and stenting for carotid stenosis in high-risk symptomatic NASCET-ineligible patients. Methods Twenty patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis at high risk ineligible for NASCET were treated with carotid angioplasty and stenting,12 of them were men,and 8 wre women,the patients ranged in age from 62 to76 years (mean age,69 years). Eleven patients had transient ischemic attack and 9 had cerebral infarction. Digital subtraction angiography showed that the degree of carotid stenosis in all patients was ＞ 70% (NASCET criteria). Among them,9 patients had unilateral carotid artery severe stenosis (2 had restenosis after endarterectomy),6 had bilateral carotid artery severe stenosis,5 had unilateral carotid artery occlusion with contralateral severe sentoses (1 had undergone cervical radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma). The embolic protection devices,predilation,and self-expandable stents were used in all patients. Results The success rate of the procedure was 100%. The residual stenosis rate was ＜ 30%. The different levels of a transient decline in heart rates and blood pressure occurred in all the patients during the procedure. One patient was complicated with microembolic embolism. No ischemic stroke occurred in the remaining patients in the periprocedure. The postoperative examination with carotid ultrasound showed that the stenoses were improved significantly. No ipsilateral ischemic stroke and coronary ischemic events were observed at 1 and 3 months follow-up after the procedures. Conclusions Carotid artery stenting is less invasive,and the perioperative complications are fewer,The treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis with high surgical risks is safe and effective.     

不符合NASCET纳入标准的高危有症状颈动脉狭窄患者的颈动脉成形支架置入术治疗

目的 探讨支架置入术治疗不符合NASCET纳入标准的高危有症状颈动脉狭窄患者的有效性和安全性.方法 对20例不符合NASCET纳入标准的高危有症状颈动脉狭窄患者进行颈动脉支架置入术治疗,其中男性12例,女性8例,年龄62～76岁(平均69岁),短暂性脑缺血发作11例,脑梗死9例.所有患者数字减影血管造影显示颈动脉狭窄程度＞70%(NA-SCET标准),其中-侧颈动脉重度狭窄9例(2例为内膜切除术后再狭窄),双侧颈动脉重度狭窄6例,一侧颈动脉闭塞伴对侧重度狭窄5例(1例为鼻咽癌放疗术后).所有患者均使用栓子保护装置,均采用预扩张和自膨式支架.结果 手术成功率100%,残余狭窄率均＜30%.所有患者术中均出现不同程度的一过性心率和血压下降,1例患者并发微栓子栓塞.其余患者围手术期内无缺血性卒中发作.术后复查颈动脉超声见狭窄显著改善.术后1个月和3个月随访均未发现同侧缺血性卒中和冠状动脉缺血事件.结论 颈动脉支架置入术创伤小、围手术期并发症少,治疗外科手术高危的有症状颈动脉狭窄是安全和有效的.