糖尿病肾病患者血清RBP4水平与颈动脉病变的相关性分析

目的：探讨糖尿病肾病（DN）患者血清RBP4水平与颈动脉病变的相关性。方法：收集2013年~2014年本院住院DN患者345例,应用独立样本间t检验、双变量相关分析以及Pearson’s检验对患者血清RBP4水平和颈动脉病变的相关性进行分析。结果：随着血清RBP4水平上升,颈动脉斑块、颈动脉狭窄发病率上升,平均颈动脉内膜中层厚度与颈动脉斑块、狭窄、e GFR相关（P〈0.05）;RBP4水平与CIMT差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论：血清RBP4水平与DN患者颈动脉斑块、狭窄发病率呈正相关。     

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。     

Delayed carotid wallstent shortening

IntroductionCarotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been demonstrated to be safe and an acceptable alternative to surgery. Stent malpositioning can occur during the maneuvers of delivering; technical errors can lead to proximal or distal slipping of the stent that needs the placement of additional pieces.Presentation of CaseWe describe the case of a postoperative dislocation of a carotid stent that happened 1 year after placement. After the first ultrasound control confirmed the correct position of the Stent the following one, executed 9 months later, showed a severe restenosis due to a proximal dislocation of the stent. The problem was solved with the positioning of a further one more distally.DiscussionWe observe the possibility of Carotid Wallstent shortening during the implant due to an incorrect placement or sizing, but a delayed displacement is a rare complication that, we highlight, can occur after CAS and that needs to be considered at the moment of the preoperative planning.ConclusionAfter CAS a closed ultrasound follow up is advisable for a long time in order to detect unexpected complications.     

颈动脉狭窄患者CEA应用颈动脉转流效果观察

目的:探讨颈动脉狭窄患者行颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)术中使用颈动脉转流有效性及安全性。方法:回顾性分析79例颈动脉狭窄患者,术中通过经颅多普勒监测双侧大脑中动脉血流速度(VMCA)。阻断颈动脉前后记录系统收缩压、术侧VMCA、对侧VMCA。将79例患者分为两组:A组V2-a<40%V1-a 41例,使用颈动脉转流;B组V2-a≥40%V1-a 38例,未使用颈动脉转流。提高血压使术侧VMCA达到50%V1-a,即刻和恢复血供后记录系统收缩压、术侧VMCA、对侧VMCA。结果:A组、B组不良事件发生率分别为22.0%、5.3%(P=0.032);A组、B组主要不良事件发生率分别为9.8%、5.3%(P=0.743)。结论:颈动脉狭窄患者行CEA术,术中使用颈动脉转流增加不良事件发生率,但对主要不良事件发生率无明显影响,不常规推荐使用颈动脉转流管。     

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。     

��������Ĥ�г�������­�⾱�����ض�Ӳ������խ59������

目的　探讨颈动脉内膜切除术 (CEA)治疗颅外颈动脉硬化性狭窄病变中的地位和疗效。方法　对1993年 5月至 2 0 0 3年 10月 5 9例 6 1次颈动脉内膜切除术的临床资料进行回顾性分析。早期 4 6例 4 7次CEA采用颈丛麻醉下通过阻断试验结合返流压力测定选择性应用转流管 ,近期 13例 14次手术在全麻并常规应用转流管下进行。结果　早期手术组颈动脉平均阻断时间 (2 0± 6 )min ,近期手术组颈动脉平均缺血时间 (4 2± 0 7)min ,P <0 0 1。术后 30d内无死亡和脑卒中。术后 2年和 5年神经系统症状发生率分别为 4 7%和 14 8%。结论　本组颈动脉内膜切除术取得满意的近远期疗效。采用全麻合并术中转流可以显著减少同侧脑缺血时间     

Comparison of nonneurological events in high-risk patients treated by carotid angioplasty versus endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE: To compare results of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in high cardiac risk patients. METHODS: Patients ineligible for carotid revascularization by North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial/Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study criteria were treated with CAS (n = 11) or CEA (n = 10). RESULTS: Significant numbers had cardiac (CAS 72%, CEA 60%; P = 0.66) and hypertensive (CAS 82%, CEA 80%; P = 0.64) risk factors. Adverse hemodynamic events were more frequent in the CAS group (CAS 73%, CEA 20%; P = 0.03). Major complications were noted in 1 patient in each group (CAS, myocardial infarction; CEA, death). Postoperative stay was similar (CAS 2.1 +/- 1.4, CEA 1.8 +/- 1.1 days; P = 0.60). However, 4 in the CAS group were readmitted within 1 month (congestive heart failure 2, myocardial infarction 1, rest pain 1), compared with no new events in the CEA group (P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Currently, the use of CAS in patients with cardiac risk factors may not be justifiable.     

颈动脉狭窄患者内膜剥脱术与支架植入术1年疗效Meta分析

目的利用Meta分析法探讨颈动脉内膜剥脱术（CEA）与颈动脉支架植入术（CAS）对颈动脉狭窄治疗1年内死亡和卒中、死亡、卒中、重度再狭窄及闭塞事件发生情况并进行评价。方法制定原始文献的纳入标准、排除标准及检索策略,搜索关于CEA及CAS治疗对颈动脉狭窄的对照研究。应用RevMan4.2.2软件对纳入文献进行定量评价。以优势比（OR值）及双侧95%可信区间（CI）作为效应尺度进行分析。结果纳入本研究的文献共6篇,1037例患者接受CAS治疗,1681例接受CEA治疗,将发生死亡和卒中、死亡、卒中事件统计数据合并;累计1586例接受CAS治疗,2196例接受CEA治疗,进行再狭窄及闭塞的统计数据合并。术后1年内CAS与CEA患者死亡和卒中、死亡、卒中事件发生差异无统计学意义,其OR值分别为0.81（95%CI0.56～1.18）、0.75（95%CI0.47～1.19）、0.78（95%CI0.53～1.16）。CAS患者再狭窄率高于CEA患者[OR=1.99（95%CI1.44～2.74）,P〈0.05）。结论对于颈动脉狭窄患者,CEA与CAS的1年死亡和卒中、死亡、卒中事件发生无明显差异,CAS术后重度再狭窄及闭塞率为CEA术的1.99倍。由于在缺乏足够数量的随机对照试验的情况下,纳入部分非随机对照试验的Meta分析,使论证强度受到一定的限制,有待更多大样本高质量随机对照试验对本研究结果进一步验证。     

双侧颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄的处理策略

目的:探讨双侧颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者的手术适应证、时机和策略.方法:1987年2月至2007年12月共收治74例双侧颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者,其中34例患者症状限于一侧,均施行了一侧颈动脉内膜切除(CEA),其中8例对侧因狭窄>70%或粥样硬化斑块不稳定而行CEA或支架成形(CAS).38例双侧均有症状,15例双侧先后施行CEA;3例一侧行CEA,对侧行CAS;20例仅行单侧CEA.另外2例双侧无症状,均因狭窄>70%而行单侧CEA,其中1例还行对侧CAS.结果:本组74例患者共行93侧CEA,68例术后顺利,2例神经功能障碍加重,2例出现心肌缺血,1例脑出血,1例声音嘶哑.67例患者平均随访4.9年,63例无与术侧颈动脉相关的脑缺血事件发生.结论:颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者只要指征明确,无论对侧颈动脉正常、狭窄甚至闭塞,均应施行CEA.双侧狭窄患者的治疗时机和策略因人而异.CEA术中主要依据电生理监测结果决定是否采用转流.     

Molecular Pathology in Vulnerable Carotid Plaques: Correlation with [18]-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography (FDG-PET)

ObjectivesAtherosclerosis is recognised as an inflammatory disease, and new diagnostic tools are warranted to evaluate plaque inflammatory activity and risk of cardiovascular events. We investigated [18]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in vulnerable carotid plaques visualised by positron emission tomography (PET). Uptake was correlated to quantitative gene expression of known markers of inflammation and plaque vulnerability.MethodsTen patients with recent transient ischaemic attack and carotid artery stenosis (>50%) underwent combined FDG-PET and computed tomography angiography (CTA) the day before carotid endarterectomy. Plaque mRNA expression of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin 18 (IL-18), the macrophage-specific marker CD68 and the two proteinases, Cathepsin K and matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9), were quantified using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction.ResultsConsistent up-regulation of CD68 (3.8-fold ± 0.9; mean ± standard error), Cathepsin K (2.1-fold ± 0.5), MMP-9 (122-fold ± 65) and IL-18 (3.4-fold ± 0.7) were found in the plaques, compared to reference-artery specimens. The FDG uptake by plaques was strongly correlated with CD68 gene expression (r = 0.71, P = 0.02). Any correlations with Cathepsin K, MMP-9 or IL-18 gene expression were weaker.ConclusionsFDG-PET uptake in carotid plaques is correlated to gene expression of CD68 and other molecular markers of inflammation and vulnerability.     

内膜剥脱治疗颈动脉残腔综合征的疗效观察

背景与目的:单侧颈内动脉(ICA)慢性闭塞后,仍有3%～5%的患者会出现黑懵、头晕等脑缺血症状,在标准的药物治疗无效时,手术治疗可作为其治疗方案之一。但目前国内对其临床诊断的病例较少,并且对手术方式的认识不足,故本研究初步探讨了以颈外动脉(ECA)、颈总动脉(CCA)或ICA内膜剥脱为主并联合ICA的残腔缝合或切断的方式治疗颈动脉残腔综合征(CSS)的安全性和有效性。方法:回顾性分析2015年8月—2018年6月9例诊断为CSS并经内膜剥脱治疗的患者临床与随访资料,其中男6例,女3例;平均年龄67.3岁。比较手术前后临床症状的变化,记录手术前后改良Rankin量表(mRS)评分情况。结果:9例患者手术均顺利结束,术后头晕、肢体乏力等神经症状均得到缓解和好转,短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)次数明显减少,但1例患者因失明时间较长,其视力仍无法缓解。2例(22.2%)出现头痛、烦躁等高灌注表现,经药物降压和脱水治疗后好转,无脑出血、脑梗死等严重并发症;有2例术后出现饮水呛咳,但均于术后1周基本恢复。mRS评分结果较术前降低(≥1分)。结论:以ECA、CCA或ICA内膜剥脱为主并联合颈内动脉的残腔缝合或切断的方式治疗CSS是一种安全、可行的治疗方法,其短期随访结果较为满意,可作为药物治疗无效时可采取的一种手术方法。     

Overview of evidence on risk factors and early management of acute carotid stent thrombosis during the last two decades

Objective

Acute carotid stent thrombosis (ACST) occurring in the first hours after the procedure is an exceedingly rare complication of carotid artery stenting, but it is potentially devastating. This review aimed to evaluate current literature, identifying all reported cases during the last two decades, with the final purpose of reporting predictive factors and early management.

Follow-up results of carotid angioplasty with stenting as assessed by duplex ultrasound surveillance

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has become an alternative modality to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of carotid occlusive disease. We report a retrospective review of our institution's experience with CAS versus CEA. METHODS: Postprocedure surveillance duplex, recurrent symptoms, postprocedure strokes, progression of lesions, and rates of re-operation were analyzed in 46 patients who underwent CAS and 48 patients who underwent CEA. The mean length of follow-up evaluation was 13 months. All CAS procedures included neuroprotection devices. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in progression to critical restenosis (2% vs 2%, P = 1.0), rate of subsequent symptoms or stroke (2% vs 10%, P = .1), or rate of re-interventions were not observed between CAS and CEA groups (2% vs 4%, P = .98). Total mortality (0% vs 2%, P = .33), and the occurrence of major adverse events (2% vs 10%, P = .18) also were not significantly different in the CAS compared with the CEA patients. The average rate of increase in internal carotid velocity at 6 to 12 months (-1% vs 1.1%, P = NS) and 12 to 24 months (-5% vs -6.5%, P = NS) also were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: Our observed results indicate that CAS may be performed with comparable clinical outcomes and durability of repair comparable with CEA.     

The Role of Carotid Endarterectomy in the Endovascular Era

OBJECTIVE: Carotid artery angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for patients with high-grade symptomatic carotid disease. The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of patients that were suitable for each type of intervention and to analyse the reasons that precluded stenting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective observational study. All patients considered for intervention for carotid artery disease during an 18-month period were analysed. The management decision was recorded, as were the reasons for unsuitability for stenting. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-eight patients' data were analysed, 224 had complete records. Forty-seven patients did not require intervention and received best medical treatment alone. One hundred and seventy-seven patients required intervention, 113 were suitable for stenting and 64 were not. In 51 patients stenting was preferred. Sixty-two patients were suitable for either stent or surgery. Sixty-four patients were unsuitable for stenting. Carotid tortuosity and proximal disease accounted for 70% of this group. CONCLUSIONS: Current enthusiasm for carotid stenting might well be supported by the results of ongoing randomised-controlled clinical trials. However, this study highlights a significant proportion (64/177; 36%) of our patients is presently unsuitable for stenting. The common technical difficulties and limitations of stenting encountered in our unit are related predominantly to carotid anatomy.     

Carotid endarterectomy remains the gold standard

BACKGROUND: To compare the safety and efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) as performed in a community medical center with the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS) and North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) standards and with representative published results regarding carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS). METHODS: Between 1 January 1994 and 31 July 2000, 267 CEA procedures were performed on 236 patients at Madigan Army Medical Center (MAMC). Prospectively acquired patient demographics, operative indications, and surgical outcomes were reviewed using clinical records, carotid duplex evaluations, and follow-up examinations. The resultant data were compared with ACAS, NASCET, and published results of CAS. RESULTS: The perioperative stroke rate was 2.2% (6 of 267) overall, 0.7% (1 of 139) among asymptomatic patients, and 3.9% (5 of 128) among symptomatic patients. There were no perioperative deaths from any cause in the entire series. The respective ACAS and NASCET early stroke-death rates were 2.3% (19 of 825) and 5.8% (19 of 328). The largest published series of CAS reported stroke-death rates of 5.7% (299 of 5,210) overall, and 3.4% (46 of 1,361) and 5.8% (93 of 1,614) for asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CEA remains the standard of care. It is a safe, effective, and durable procedure that can be performed in a facility such as MAMC with outcomes that compare favorably with ACAS and NASCET. Results of CEA at MAMC are superior to similar data regarding CAS. Widespread use of CAS should be deferred pending completion of on-going prospective trials versus CEA.