Eversion endarterectomy of the internal carotid artery combined with open endarterectomy of the common carotid artery

The author presents a technique for endarterectomy and reconstruction of the carotid bifurcation in difficult cases when the plaque extends high into the internal carotid artery. The technique combines the aspects of the 2 most commonly performed procedures: carotid endarterectomy after a longitudinal arteriotomy extending from the common carotid artery into the internal carotid artery and eversion endarterectomy in which the plaque is removed from the internal carotid artery sectioned from the common carotid artery and everted. The author suggests applying this technique selectively in patients in whom the atherosclerotic plaque extends very high into the internal carotid artery. The technique offers the advantages of removing the plaque into the common carotid artery under direct vision and leaving the original dimensions and geometry of the internal carotid artery, theoretically decreasing the probability of early thrombosis and recurrent carotid disease. For routine cases, the author prefers and recommends standard carotid bifurcation endarterectomy with patch closure when the size of the arteries is reduced like in women and selected male patients.     

颈动脉内膜切除术治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄

目的:回顾性总结应用颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄的早期效果和经验。方法:对82例(男66例,女16例,年龄48～84岁,平均68.6岁)症状性颈动脉狭窄病人行CEA。全组均经颈部血管多普勒超声和数字减影血管造影术(DSA)确诊颈动脉粥样斑块形成、颈动脉狭窄。手术采用气管内插管全身麻醉39例,颈丛麻醉43例。术中放置动脉临时转流管56例,其中全麻应用39例,颈丛麻醉17例。结果:全组无死亡病例,脑缺血症状明显改善者65例,症状好转者14例,术后并发脑梗死2例,颈动脉内血栓形成1例。结论:CEA是治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄的有效方法。     

颈动脉狭窄血管内支架植入和内膜切除术治疗的临床选择

目的 探讨在不同条件下如何合理选择颈动脉狭窄的治疗方式.方法 回顾性分析经颈动脉血管内支架植入术(CAS)和颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)治疗的133例颈动脉狭窄患者的临床资料.其中46例患者行CAS,87例行CEA.观察两组患者的住院天数和治疗前后的美国国立卫生研究院卒中评分量表(NIHSS)评分、前向血流,治疗前和治疗后1-24个月狭窄处收缩期血流速度峰值及狭窄程度,以及治疗后死亡、脑卒中或心肌梗死等终点事件的发生率.结果 两组住院天数和治疗后NIHSS评分>20层次时差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组治疗前后的前向血流评定差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);多普勒频谱测定两组治疗前后颈动脉狭窄程度有显著性差异(P<0.05);两组治疗后30 d内,终点事件的累计发生率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);31 d～2年终点事件的累计发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);6个月后再狭窄发生率CAS组高于CEA组.结论 CAS和CEA对颈动脉狭窄的效果无显著差异,狭窄的部位、原因及对侧病变是选择CAS和CEA的重要因素.     

血管内支架成形术治疗颅外段颈动脉狭窄

目的:分析总结血管内支架治疗颅外段颈动脉狭窄的方法和并发症的预防.方法2001年10月至2008年6月共271例(300侧)颅外段颈动脉狭窄患者接受血管内支架成形术治疗,术前口服氯吡格雷75 ms/d,肠溶阿司匹林100～200 mg/d,辛伐他丁40 mg/晚,共5～10 d.应用肝素持续静脉滴注(50 mg/d)共2 d.术后继续抗血小板、降脂治疗.结果:271例患者(300侧)手术均获成功,颈动脉狭窄和脑缺血症状得到明显改善.术后1周内并发症7例,1例死亡.226例患者3～24个月行超声或数字减影血管造影,5例发生再狭窄;其中45例患者超声随访超过36个月,无再狭窄病例;所有病例随访期间无脑缺血相关症状发生.结论:血管内支架治疗颈动脉狭窄是安全有效的,正确的围手术期的处理以及娴熟的操作技巧是手术成功的关键.     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术抑或颈动脉支架术: 颈动脉狭窄手术治疗的金标准之争

脑卒中是当今第三大致死病因,是成年人致残的首要原因。颈动脉狭窄是导致缺血性卒中事件发生的最常见原因。20世纪80～90年代已有多个随机对照试验证实颈动脉内膜剥脱术相比于内科药物治疗对于预防卒中具有明显优势。近年来,随着介入技术和器材的不断进步,血管腔内介入治疗愈发成熟,其安全性及有效性正在为一些大规模的临床随机对照试验所证实,腔内介入治疗颈动脉狭窄正在挑战着外科内膜剥脱术的＂金标准＂地位。     

Carotid endarterectomy versus stenting for stroke prevention: what we have and will learn from Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial

The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) has major implications for the future of carotid revascularization and stroke prevention. The purpose of The William Hinter Harridge Lecture was to discuss the history of carotid revascularization before CREST, to delineate the emergence of carotid artery stenting as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy, analyze the key findings in CREST, and describe the next phase of investigation, CREST-2.     

How I do it: cervical access for carotid artery stenting

Atypical aortic arch anatomy, vessel tortuosity, and extensive atherosclerotic disease in the aortic arch and great vessels represent significant risks for embolization during angioplasty and stenting of carotid occlusive lesions. The technique of cervical access to the proximal common carotid artery is demonstrated as a safer means for dealing with these problems. Combining endovascular and open surgical techniques can simplify and help ensure the safety of carotid stent procedures.     

A comparison of carotid artery stenting with neuroprotection versus carotid endarterectomy under local anesthesia

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) reduce the risk of stroke in patients with high-grade carotid artery stenosis. Despite the known impact of type of anesthesia on outcome after CEA, none of the current studies comparing CEA with CAS addresses the effect of anesthetic choice on perioperative events. In this study, we compare our results of distally protected CAS versus CEA under local anesthesia. METHODS: Clinical data of 345 patients who underwent 372 procedures for carotid artery occlusive disease over a 36-month were retrospectively collected for this analysis. Distal embolic protection was used in CAS procedures. All procedures, both CEA (n = 221, 59%) and CAS (N = 152, 41%), were performed under local anesthesia. The primary outcome measure was aggregate 30-day major ipsilateral stroke and/or death. Follow-up serial Duplex ultrasound examinations were performed. RESULTS: Both patient cohorts were similar in terms of demographic and risk factors, with the exception of a higher incidence of coronary artery disease in the CAS group (59% versus 30%, P <.05). The 30-day stroke and death rates were 3.2% (CAS) and 3.7% (CEA) (P = not significant). Cranial nerve injury only occurred in the CEA patients (2.3%). Perioperative hemodynamic instability was more common among patients in the CAS group (11.9% versus 4.1%, P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous carotid stenting with neuroprotection provides comparable clinical success to CEA performed under local anesthetic. Further studies are warranted to validate the long-term efficacy of CAS and to elucidate patient selection criteria for endovascular carotid revascularization.     

Influence of multiple stents on periprocedural stroke after carotid artery stenting in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial (CREST)

Background

In the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial (CREST), carotid artery atherosclerotic lesion length and nature of the lesions were important factors that predicted the observed difference in stroke rates between carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting (CAS). Additional patient-related factors influencing CAS outcomes in CREST included age and symptomatic status. The importance of the operator's proficiency and its influence on periprocedural complications have not been well defined. We evaluated data from CREST to determine the impact of use of multiple stents, which we speculate may be related to technical proficiency.

Concomitant ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy and stenting is an effective treatment for tandem carotid artery lesions

ObjectiveData regarding the treatment of tandem carotid artery lesions at the bifurcation and ipsilateral, proximal common carotid artery (CCA) are limited. It has been suggested that concomitant treatment with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and proximal ipsilateral carotid artery stenting confers a high risk of stroke and death. The objective of this study was to evaluate the technique and outcomes of this hybrid procedure at a single institution.MethodsA retrospective chart review was performed including patients who underwent CEA + ipsilateral carotid artery stenting for treatment of atherosclerotic carotid artery disease between December 2007 and April 2017. Primary endpoints were postoperative myocardial infarction, neurologic event, and perioperative mortality.ResultsTwenty-two patients (15 male [68%]) underwent CEA + ipsilateral carotid artery stenting with a mean follow-up of 67 ± 77 months. The mean age was 70.0 ± 6.1 years old, all with a prior smoking history (eight current smokers [64%]). Twelve patients (55%) were treated for symptomatic disease and three had a prior ipsilateral CEA (one also with CAS). Computed tomographic angiography imaging was performed preoperatively in 21 patients (95%). CEA was performed first in 18 patients (82%) followed by ipsilateral carotid artery stenting. CEA was performed with a patch in 20 and eversion endarterectomy in two patients. Ipsilateral CCA was stented in 21 patients (96%) and one innominate was stented in a patient with a right CEA. Additional endovascular interventions were performed in three patients: 1 innominate stent, 1 distal ipsilateral internal carotid artery stent, and 1 right subclavian artery stent. All proximal stents were placed with sheath access through the endarterectomy patch in 12 (55%), CCA in 7 (32%), and through the arteriotomy before patching in 3 (14%). Distal internal carotid artery clamping was performed in 18 (90%, available 20) of patients before ipsilateral carotid artery stenting. All proximal lesions were successfully treated endovascularly with no open conversion. One dissection was created and treated effectively with stenting. One perioperative stroke (4.5%) occurred in a patient treated for symptomatic disease, 1 postoperative myocardial infarction (4.5%), and 2 patients (9.1%) with cranial nerve injuries. There was one patient who expired within 30 days, shortly after discharge for unknown reasons. The mean length of stay was 2.6 ± 2.0 days.ConclusionsIn appropriately selected patients, concomitant CEA and ipsilateral carotid artery stenting can be safely performed in high-risk patients with a low risk of myocardial infarction, neurologic events, and perioperative mortality when careful surgical technique is used, using direct carotid access, and distal carotid clamping for cerebral protection before stenting.     

Stroke From Carotid Endarterectomy: When and How to Reduce Perioperative Stroke Rate?

OBJECTIVES: To analyse four years of CEA with respect to the underlying mechanisms of perioperative stroke and the role of intraoperative monitoring in the prevention of stroke. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 1996 through December 1999, 599 CEAs were performed in 404 men and 195 women (mean age: 65 years, range: 39-88). All operations were performed under general anaesthesia using computerised electroencephalography (EEG) and transcranial Doppler (TCD). Any new or any extension of an existing focal cerebral deficit, as well as stroke-related death were registered. Perioperative strokes were classified by time of onset (intraoperative or postoperative), outcome (minor or major stroke), and side (ipsilateral or contralateral). Stroke aetiology was assessed intraoperatively by means of EEG, TCD, completion arteriography or immediate re-exploration, and postoperatively by duplex sonography, computerised tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the head. RESULTS: Perioperative stroke or death occurred in 20 (3.3%) patients. In four operations stroke was apparent immediately after surgery. Mechanisms of these strokes were ipsilateral carotid artery occlusion (1) and embolisation (3). In 16 patients stroke developed after a symptom-free interval (2-72 h, mean 18 h) due to occlusion of the internal carotid artery on the side of surgery (9). Other mechanisms were: contralateral occlusion of the internal carotid artery (1), postoperative hyperperfusion syndrome (1), intracerebral haemorrhage (1), and contralateral ischaemia due to prolonged clamping (1). In three procedures the cause was unknown. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience most strokes from CEA developed after a symptom-free interval and mainly due to thromboembolism of the operated artery. We suggest the introduction of additional TCD monitoring during the immediate postoperative phase.     

Carotid artery angioplasty with stenting and postprocedure hypotension

INTRODUCTION: Although carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has become established as the preferred approach to the management of critical carotid stenosis, carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS) has arisen as a competitive modality. We report here a nonindustry-supported experience using CAS in a nonselected patient population suffering from critical carotid stenosis. METHODS: All patients suffering from carotid stenosis (>50% symptomatic or >80% asymptomatic) were offered CAS or CEA. The first 36 patients who underwent attempted CAS over this last year are reported here. CAS was performed with the SMART PRECISE (Cordis, Inc, Miami Lakes, FL) or ACCULINK (Guidant, Inc, St Paul, MN) stents. All procedures were performed with cerebral protection. RESULTS: The planned procedure success rate was 97%, and the major adverse event (MAE) rate was 3.0% in 35 patients who underwent successful CAS. This included a minor stroke and a subendocardial myocardial infarction in the same individual. Both events were attributed to sustained postprocedure hypotension. The most frequent intraprocedure complications observed were bradycardia and hypotension. Persistent postprocedure hypotension requiring vasopressor support complicated 23% of cases. The average duration of vasopressor support in this group was 21 hours. CONCLUSION: CAS can be accomplished with an MAE comparable to CEA and will likely become the dominant alternative to CEA for the management of carotid stenosis. Management of periprocedural cardiovascular instability represents one of the most important elements in the safe conduct of CAS.     

颈动脉硬化狭窄支架成形常见并发症的防治

目的回顾性分析颈动脉支架成形治疗缺血性脑血管疾病围手术期常见并发症的原因及其处理。方法58例62处颈动脉狭窄行CAS治疗,成功植入41枚Wallstent支架,20枚“Z”型支架,技术成功率达98%。结果所有患者术后随访1个月,明确诊断过度灌注综合症1例,6例患者出现程度不等的头晕、头痛;12例出现颈动脉窦反应;1例术后脑MRI新发梗死,1例双侧重度狭窄的患者术中出现短暂性脑缺血发作;术中脑血管痉挛12例;发现穿刺局部血肿6例(假性动脉瘤2例),动静脉瘘1例。结论术前充分准备、术中规范化操作、术后积极正规治疗可明显降低CAS围手术期并发症、改善预后。     

脑保护装置在颈部动脉狭窄扩张和支架置入术中的初步应用

目的：报告脑保护装置在颈动脉和椎动脉粥样硬化性狭窄血管内扩张和支架置入术中的初步应用结果。方法：应用脑保护装置filterwire（滤网导丝）,或angioguard（血管保护伞）,对18例21处颈动脉和椎动脉粥样硬化性狭窄行血管内扩张和（或）支架置入术,并总结其临床使用结果。结果：应用脑保护装置成功施行21例次颈动脉和椎动脉狭窄血管内扩张和（或）支架置入术,介入操作方便易行,无术中和术后并发症发生。结论：脑保护装置有助于降低颈动脉和椎动脉狭窄血管内扩张和支架置入术中动脉粥样斑块或附壁血栓脱落性脑梗死的发生,提高其治疗安全性。     

Carotid artery stenting with routine cerebral protection in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting has emerged as an alternative treatment modality in carotid occlusive disease. This study examined our experience of carotid stenting with routine cerebral embolization protection in high-risk patients. METHODS: Clinical variables and treatment outcome of high-risk patients who underwent carotid stenting with neuroprotection were analyzed during a 26-month period. RESULTS: Sixty-eight high-risk patients with 72 carotid artery stenoses were treated. Procedural success was achieved in 70 cases (97%), and symptomatic lesions existed in 17 (24%) patients. Monorail Wallstents stents were used in all cases. Neuroprotective devices used were PercuSurge (28%) and Filterwire (72%). There was no periprocedural mortality or neuroprotective device-related complications. The 30-day stroke and death rate was 2.7%, and the overall complication rate was 6.9%. All stented vessels remained patent during the follow-up period (mean 15.3 +/- 4.2, range 1 to 23 months). Two asymptomatic in-stent restenosis (3%) occurred at 6 and 8 months, which were both successfully treated with balloon angioplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that percutaneous carotid stenting with routine use of a cerebral protection device is a feasible and effective treatment in high-risk patients with carotid occlusive disease.     

支架成形术治疗老年人颈动脉狭窄前后脑血流动力学评价

目的:探讨老年颈动脉狭窄相关局部脑血流量(rCBF)的影响因素,分析支架成形术前后脑血流灌注及相关临床症状的变化.方法:回顾2005年8月至2008年4月我院行SPECT检查且经血管造影证实的老年颈动脉狭窄68例,分析颈动脉狭窄程度、狭窄侧别、是否合并椎基底动脉狭窄(VBS)、侧支循环是否开放和支架成形术前后等情况时相关rCBF的变化.结果:单侧颈动脉狭窄按不同因素分组时相关rCBF下降例数的卡方检验:狭窄90%～99%分别与50%～69%和70%～89%患者比较,P值分别为0.046和0.020;合并VBS和不合并VBS患者比较,P值为0.927;侧支循环开放与无侧支循环患者比较,P值为0.222.颈动脉单侧狭窄与双侧狭窄患者比较,P值为0.046.支架成形术后狭窄相关的rCBF下降区76%的患者得到改善,神经功能状况的改良Rankin评分由入院时(1.4±0.7)分降为术后的(0.4±0.3)分(P<0.001).结论:颈动脉狭窄程度、狭窄侧别可能是影响老年颈动脉狭窄相关rCBF的因素,支架成形术可明显改善狭窄相关rCBF,临床相关症状亦显著改善.     

Comparison of nationwide trends in 30-day readmission rates after carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy

ObjectiveCarotid revascularization procedures, carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), are among the most common vascular interventions performed in the United States, with significant resource utilization. Whereas multiple studies have reported outcomes after these procedures, data regarding 30-day readmission rates after these interventions remain scant.MethodsThe U.S. Nationwide Readmission Database (2010-2014) was queried to identify all patients ≥18 years who were readmitted within 30 days after a hospital discharge for CEA or CAS.ResultsAmong 476,260 patients included, 13.5% underwent CAS and 86.5% underwent CEA. The combined 30-day readmission rate for all carotid revascularization procedures was 9.2% (10.6% after CAS and 9.0% after CEA). After 1:3 propensity matching, CAS was associated with higher risk of readmission compared with CEA (10.4% vs 9.4%). Neurologic complications and cardiac conditions were the two most common causes of readmission after both CAS (29.7% and 23.7%, respectively) and CEA (28.2% and 21.7%, respectively). The 30-day readmission rates were higher in CAS patients across all age groups as well as in those with a low or high baseline burden of comorbidities.ConclusionsIn this large nationwide study, CAS was associated with higher 30-day readmission rates compared with CEA irrespective of age or baseline burden of comorbidities. Neurologic or cardiac adverse events were responsible for >50% of readmissions after CAS and CEA.     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术和颈动脉支架的前瞻性随机对照研究

目的 评价颈动脉内膜剥脱术和颈动脉支架治疗颈动脉狭窄的近期和中期临床效果.方法 前瞻性单中心随机对照研究,自2004年5月至2006年12月,将同意入组的40例有症状(狭窄程度>50%)和无症状(狭窄程度>70%)颈动脉狭窄患者随机分为两组,即颈动脉内膜剥脱术组(CEA)和颈动脉支架组(CAS).一期观察终点是术后30 d内出现严重脑梗死或死亡;二期观察终点是各种手术并发症、急性脑缺血发作、偏瘫、急性心肌梗死和术后18个月内的脑卒中、死亡和再狭窄等,同时回顾性分析两组总的住院费用.结果 CEA和CAS两组患者术前一般资料、临床症状、伴随疾病等因素均无差异.CEA组20例23支颈动脉手术(3例分别行双侧CEA),术中应用转流管9条(39.1%),颈动脉补片12条(52.2%);CAS组20例23支颈动脉支架(3例行双侧CAS),应用脑保护装置21个(91.3%).CEA和CAS两组术后30 d内神经系统并发症(4.3%对8.7%,P=0.46)、急性心肌梗死(4.3%对0,P=0.31)和伤口血肿(8.7%对0,P=0.14)等差异均无统计学意义,至术后18个月无短暂性脑缺血发作和再狭窄病例.CEA和CAS两组平均住院费用分别为(16 450.95±6188.76)和(70 130.15±11 999.02)元人民币,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).结论 CEA和CAS术后30 d和术后18个月的并发症、病死率和临床疗效无明显差异,但CAS的住院花费明显高于CEA.     

Results of carotid endarterectomy in patients with contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion from the Mid-America Vascular Study Group and the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative

ObjectiveCarotid endarterectomy (CEA) is among the most commonly performed vascular procedures. Some have suggested worse outcomes with contralateral internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion. We compared patients with and patients without contralateral ICA occlusion using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database.MethodsDeidentified data were obtained from the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients with prior ipsilateral or contralateral CEA, carotid stenting, combined CEA and coronary artery bypass graft, or <1-year follow-up were excluded, yielding 1737 patients with and 45,179 patients without contralateral ICA occlusion. Groups were compared with univariate tests, and differences identified in univariate testing were entered into multivariate models to identify independent predictors of outcomes and in particular whether contralateral ICA occlusion is an independent predictor of outcomes.ResultsPatients with contralateral ICA occlusion were younger and more likely to be smokers; they were more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, preoperative neurologic symptoms (56% vs 47%), nonelective CEA (16% vs 13%), and shunt placement (75% vs 53%; all P < .001). The 30-day ipsilateral stroke risk was 1.3% with vs 0.7% without contralateral ICA occlusion (P = .004). The 30-day and 1-year survival estimates were 99.0% ± 0.5% and 94.1% ± 1.1% with vs 99.6% ± 0.1% and 96.0% ± 0.2% without contralateral ICA occlusion (log-rank, P < .001). Logistic regression analysis identified prior neurologic event (P = .046), nonelective surgery (P = .047), absence of coronary artery disease (P = .035), and preoperative angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use (P = .029) to be associated with 30-day ipsilateral stroke risk, but contralateral ICA occlusion remained an independent predictor in that model (odds ratio, 2.29; P = .026). However, after adjustment for other factors (Cox proportional hazards), risk of ipsilateral stroke (including perioperative) during follow-up was not significantly greater with contralateral ICA occlusion (hazard ratio, 1.21; P = .32). Results comparing propensity score-matched cohorts mirrored those from the larger data set.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates likely clinically insignificant differences in early stroke or death in comparing CEA patients with and those without contralateral ICA occlusion. After adjustment for other factors, contralateral ICA occlusion was not associated with a greater risk of ipsilateral stroke (including perioperative) in longer follow-up. Mortality was greater with contralateral ICA occlusion, and this difference was more pronounced at 1 year despite younger age of the contralateral ICA occlusion group. CEA risk remains low even in the presence of contralateral ICA occlusion and appears to be explained at least in part by other factors. CEA should still be considered appropriate in the face of contralateral ICA occlusion.     

颈动脉狭窄手术及介入治疗的围术期管理

背景 脑卒中是造成人类死亡的主要原因之一.15％～20％的缺血性脑血管病归因于颈动脉狭窄或闭塞,颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)和颈动脉血管腔内球囊成形及支架植入术(carotid angioplasty and stenting,CAS)对预防缺血事件发生有效,但围手术期卒中、死亡等并发症对围术期管理提出挑战. 目的 对颈动脉狭窄手术及介入治疗围术期管理进行综述. 内容 重点阐述CEA和CAS围术期危险因素控制、术前评估、麻醉方法与管理、术中神经功能监测和脑保护. 趋向 积极谨慎的围术期管理是保证颈动脉狭窄患者围术期脑氧供需平衡、降低围术期并发症的有效措施.