冠心病颈动脉狭窄患者术后危险因素分析

目的：探究合并冠心病的颈动脉狭窄患者术后并发症的风险因素。方法：回顾性分析2011年1月至2020年8月期间，于北京安贞医院血管外科行手术治疗颈动脉狭窄的冠心病的患者，分为颈动脉内膜剥脱术（carotid endarterectomy,CEA）组和颈动脉支架置入术（carotid artery stenting,CAS）组，观察并记录两组患者围手术期的并发症，包括死亡、卒中(出血性、缺血性)、心肌梗死、急性肾衰竭、肺部感染、消化道出血、脑过度灌注综合征以及颅外神经损伤等。结果：合并冠心病的颈动脉狭窄患者行CEA和CAS围手术期并发症发生风险相近，糖尿病会增加行CAS术后脑卒中的风险（OR=46.88,P=0.038）。结论：对于合并有冠心病的颈动脉狭窄患者，CAS或CEA对于患者术后的死亡、心肌梗死、脑卒中及其他并发症无显著影响，都是安全有效的手术方式。     

经颅多普勒超声微栓子监测与颈动脉狭窄关系的研究进展

正微栓子是指血流中通过的除正常红细胞以外的成分,是动脉狭窄患者发生动脉-动脉栓塞的原因,其存在说明了动脉粥样硬化斑块的不稳定性~([1])。对微栓子进行监测,可为预防卒中提供治疗决策。笔者对经颅多普勒超声(TCD)微栓子监测与分水岭梗死、颈动脉斑块性质的关系、在颈动脉狭窄治疗中的价值等综述如下。1微栓子概述栓塞和低灌注被认为是颈内动脉狭窄卒中患者     

常规与外翻式颈动脉内膜切除术预防卒中的比较

背景:常规颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)通过纵向动脉切开术来进行,而外翻CEA则采用横向动脉切开术和颈动脉再植入法。据报道,后者的围手术期卒中和术后再狭窄率较低,但与远端内膜皮瓣有关的并发症的危险性却有所增加。 目的:评估外翻CEA与常规CEA相比是否更加安全有效。无效假设是外翻CEA和常规CEA技术(一次闭合或补片血管成形术)之间没有差别。 检索策略:检索了Cochrane卒中组试验资料库(最后检索时间为2002年7月)、Cochrane对照试验中心     

ESVS指南:颈动脉狭窄有创性治疗的适应证和技术

欧洲血管外科学会召集颈动脉疾病领域的专家制定了关于颈动脉疾病有创性治疗的最新指南.根据证据级别对推荐意见进行分级.对于狭窄程度50%的有症状患者,如果围手术期卒中/死亡发生率<6%,则推荐行颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterctomy,CEA)(A级推荐),最好在患者最近发作的2周内进行(A级推荐).对于狭窄程度为70%～99%并且年龄在75岁以下的男性无症状患者,如果围手术期卒中/死亡发生率<3%,也推荐行CEA(A级推荐).女性无症状患者从CEA中获得的益处明显不如男性患者(A级推荐).因此,只有年龄较小的合适的女性患者才考虑行CEA(A级推荐).颈动脉补片血管成形术优于直接缝合(A级推荐).在CEA术前、术中和术后均应给予阿司匹林(75～325 mg/d)和他汀类药物治疗(A级推荐).颈动脉支架置入术(carotid arterystenting,CAS)仅适用于CEA高危患者,并且应在围手术期卒中/死亡发生率较低的大型中心或是在随机对照试验中进行(C级推荐).在CAS治疗的同时,应使用阿司匹林+氯吡格雷双重抗血小板治疗(A级推荐).使用颈动脉保护装置可能有益(C级推荐).     

ESVS指南:颈动脉狭窄有创性治疗的适应证和技术

欧洲血管外科学会召集颈动脉疾病领域的专家制定了关于颈动脉疾病有创性治疗的最新指南.根据证据级别对推荐意见进行分级.对于狭窄程度50%的有症状患者,如果围手术期卒中/死亡发生率<6%,则推荐行颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterctomy,CEA)(A级推荐),最好在患者最近发作的2周内进行(A级推荐).对于狭窄程度为70%～99%并且年龄在75岁以下的男性无症状患者,如果围手术期卒中/死亡发生率<3%,也推荐行CEA(A级推荐).女性无症状患者从CEA中获得的益处明显不如男性患者(A级推荐).因此,只有年龄较小的合适的女性患者才考虑行CEA(A级推荐).颈动脉补片血管成形术优于直接缝合(A级推荐).在CEA术前、术中和术后均应给予阿司匹林(75～325 mg/d)和他汀类药物治疗(A级推荐).颈动脉支架置入术(carotid arterystenting,CAS)仅适用于CEA高危患者,并且应在围手术期卒中/死亡发生率较低的大型中心或是在随机对照试验中进行(C级推荐).在CAS治疗的同时,应使用阿司匹林+氯吡格雷双重抗血小板治疗(A级推荐).使用颈动脉保护装置可能有益(C级推荐).     

ESVS指南:颈动脉狭窄有创性治疗的适应证和技术

欧洲血管外科学会召集颈动脉疾病领域的专家制定了关于颈动脉疾病有创性治疗的最新指南.根据证据级别对推荐意见进行分级.对于狭窄程度50%的有症状患者,如果围手术期卒中/死亡发生率<6%,则推荐行颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterctomy,CEA)(A级推荐),最好在患者最近发作的2周内进行(A级推荐).对于狭窄程度为70%～99%并且年龄在75岁以下的男性无症状患者,如果围手术期卒中/死亡发生率<3%,也推荐行CEA(A级推荐).女性无症状患者从CEA中获得的益处明显不如男性患者(A级推荐).因此,只有年龄较小的合适的女性患者才考虑行CEA(A级推荐).颈动脉补片血管成形术优于直接缝合(A级推荐).在CEA术前、术中和术后均应给予阿司匹林(75～325 mg/d)和他汀类药物治疗(A级推荐).颈动脉支架置入术(carotid arterystenting,CAS)仅适用于CEA高危患者,并且应在围手术期卒中/死亡发生率较低的大型中心或是在随机对照试验中进行(C级推荐).在CAS治疗的同时,应使用阿司匹林+氯吡格雷双重抗血小板治疗(A级推荐).使用颈动脉保护装置可能有益(C级推荐).     

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.     

ESVS指南:颈动脉狭窄有创性治疗的适应证和技术

欧洲血管外科学会召集颈动脉疾病领域的专家制定了关于颈动脉疾病有创性治疗的最新指南.根据证据级别对推荐意见进行分级.对于狭窄程度50%的有症状患者,如果围手术期卒中/死亡发生率<6%,则推荐行颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterctomy,CEA)(A级推荐),最好在患者最近发作的2周内进行(A级推荐).对于狭窄程度为70%～99%并且年龄在75岁以下的男性无症状患者,如果围手术期卒中/死亡发生率<3%,也推荐行CEA(A级推荐).女性无症状患者从CEA中获得的益处明显不如男性患者(A级推荐).因此,只有年龄较小的合适的女性患者才考虑行CEA(A级推荐).颈动脉补片血管成形术优于直接缝合(A级推荐).在CEA术前、术中和术后均应给予阿司匹林(75～325 mg/d)和他汀类药物治疗(A级推荐).颈动脉支架置入术(carotid arterystenting,CAS)仅适用于CEA高危患者,并且应在围手术期卒中/死亡发生率较低的大型中心或是在随机对照试验中进行(C级推荐).在CAS治疗的同时,应使用阿司匹林+氯吡格雷双重抗血小板治疗(A级推荐).使用颈动脉保护装置可能有益(C级推荐).     

ESVS指南:颈动脉狭窄有创性治疗的适应证和技术

欧洲血管外科学会召集颈动脉疾病领域的专家制定了关于颈动脉疾病有创性治疗的最新指南.根据证据级别对推荐意见进行分级.对于狭窄程度50%的有症状患者,如果围手术期卒中/死亡发生率<6%,则推荐行颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterctomy,CEA)(A级推荐),最好在患者最近发作的2周内进行(A级推荐).对于狭窄程度为70%～99%并且年龄在75岁以下的男性无症状患者,如果围手术期卒中/死亡发生率<3%,也推荐行CEA(A级推荐).女性无症状患者从CEA中获得的益处明显不如男性患者(A级推荐).因此,只有年龄较小的合适的女性患者才考虑行CEA(A级推荐).颈动脉补片血管成形术优于直接缝合(A级推荐).在CEA术前、术中和术后均应给予阿司匹林(75～325 mg/d)和他汀类药物治疗(A级推荐).颈动脉支架置入术(carotid arterystenting,CAS)仅适用于CEA高危患者,并且应在围手术期卒中/死亡发生率较低的大型中心或是在随机对照试验中进行(C级推荐).在CAS治疗的同时,应使用阿司匹林+氯吡格雷双重抗血小板治疗(A级推荐).使用颈动脉保护装置可能有益(C级推荐).     

ESVS指南:颈动脉狭窄有创性治疗的适应证和技术

欧洲血管外科学会召集颈动脉疾病领域的专家制定了关于颈动脉疾病有创性治疗的最新指南.根据证据级别对推荐意见进行分级.对于狭窄程度50%的有症状患者,如果围手术期卒中/死亡发生率<6%,则推荐行颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterctomy,CEA)(A级推荐),最好在患者最近发作的2周内进行(A级推荐).对于狭窄程度为70%～99%并且年龄在75岁以下的男性无症状患者,如果围手术期卒中/死亡发生率<3%,也推荐行CEA(A级推荐).女性无症状患者从CEA中获得的益处明显不如男性患者(A级推荐).因此,只有年龄较小的合适的女性患者才考虑行CEA(A级推荐).颈动脉补片血管成形术优于直接缝合(A级推荐).在CEA术前、术中和术后均应给予阿司匹林(75～325 mg/d)和他汀类药物治疗(A级推荐).颈动脉支架置入术(carotid arterystenting,CAS)仅适用于CEA高危患者,并且应在围手术期卒中/死亡发生率较低的大型中心或是在随机对照试验中进行(C级推荐).在CAS治疗的同时,应使用阿司匹林+氯吡格雷双重抗血小板治疗(A级推荐).使用颈动脉保护装置可能有益(C级推荐).     

Carotid Endarterectomy and Intraoperative Emboli Detection: Correlation of Clinical, Transcranial Doppler, and Magnetic Resonance Findings

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed with continuous transcranial Doppler (TCD) monitoring provides a unique opportunity to determine the number of cerebral microemboli and to relate their occurrence to the surgical technique. The purpose of this study was to assess in CEA the impact of cerebral microembolism on clinical outcome and brain morphology. We also evaluated the influence of the audible TCD signal on the surgeon and his/her technique. In a prospective series of 301 endarterectomies, brain function was monitored with electroencephalography and TCD ultrasonography. Preoperative and intraoperative risk factors were entered in a logistic regression analysis program to assess their correlation with cerebral outcome. To evaluate the impact of cerebral microembolism on brain morphology, we compared preoperative and postoperative magnetic resonance (MR) images of the brain in a subgroup of 40 patients. Microemboli (> 10) observed during the dissection phase of the operation were related to intraoperative (P < 0.002) and postoperative (P < 0.02) cerebral complications. Microemboli that occurred during shunting were also related to intraoperative complications (P < 0.007). Finally, the phenomenon of > 10 microemboli during dissection was significantly (P < 0.005) related to new hyperintensive lesions on the postoperative T_2-weighted MR images. The presence of microembolism (> 10) during the dissection phase of carotid endarterectomy shows a statistically significant relationship with perioperative cerebral complications and with new ischemic lesions on MR images of the brain. Microembolism during shunting is also related to intraoperative complications. Surgeons can be guided by the audio Doppler and emboli signals by changing their technique, which may result in a decline of the intraoperative stroke rate.     

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.     

Carotid Endarterectomy: Current Concepts and Practice Patterns

Background Stroke is the number one cause of disability and third leading cause of death among adults in the United States. A major cause of stroke is carotid artery stenosis (CAS) caused by atherosclerotic plaques. Randomized trials have varying results regarding the equivalence and perioperative complication rates of stents versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the management of CAS. Objectives We review the evidence for the current management of CAS and describe the current concepts and practice patterns of CEA. Methods A literature search was conducted using PubMed to identify relevant studies regarding CEA and stenting for the management of CAS. Results The introduction of CAS has led to a decrease in the percentage of CEA and an increase in the number of CAS procedures performed in the context of all revascularization procedures. However, the efficacy of stents in patients with symptomatic CAS remains unclear because of varying results among randomized trials, but the perioperative complication rates exceed those found after CEA. Conclusions Vascular surgeons are uniquely positioned to treat carotid artery disease through medical therapy, CEA, and stenting. Although data from randomized trials differ, it is important for surgeons to make clinical decisions based on the patient. We believe that CAS can be adopted with low complication rate in a selected subgroup of patients, but CEA should remain the standard of care. This current evidence should be incorporated into practice of the modern vascular surgeon.     

颈动脉内膜切除术中转流管的应用及侧支代偿对其的影响

目的探讨颈动脉内膜切除术（CEA）中转流管应用的优缺点,以及对侧颈动脉闭塞及前、后交通动脉开放对其的影响。方法回顾性分析2000年1月—2011年9月共308例CEA病例,根据是否应用转流管分为两组,转流组63例,未转流组245例。比较两组术中微栓子数量,术后卒中及死亡率。比较两组中对侧颈动脉狭窄程度以及前、后交通动脉开放的比例,分析其对转流管应用的影响。结果①转流组患者微栓子的中位数为25个,未转流组为10个,两组差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。②术后1个月内缺血事件的发生率,转流组患者卒中1例（1.6%）,无一例死亡;未转流患者卒中6例（2.4%）,死亡4例（1.6%）。两组的卒中及病死率差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。③术前对侧颈动脉狭窄的程度,转流组患者中有8例闭塞,8例重度狭窄,47例轻中度狭窄或无狭窄。未转流组患者中,分别为9、36、200例。两组闭塞率（12.7%比3.7%）比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。术前前交通动脉及后交通动脉均未开放的患者,转流组有35例（55.6%）,未转流组有81例（33.1%）,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。结论 CEA中使用转流管虽增加微栓子的数量,但并未增加围手术期卒中及死亡率。术前伴有对侧颈动脉闭塞的患者或前、后交通动脉均未开放的患者,使用转流管的比例明显高于其他患者。     

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.     

颈动脉内膜切除术预防和治疗缺血性卒中的疗效分析

目的:评估颅外段颈内动脉重度狭窄患者颈动脉内膜切除术预防和治疗缺血性卒中的临床价值。方法:22例患者均由经颅多普勒(TCD)筛选、数字减影血管造影(DSA)或CT血管造影(CTA)检查证实为颈内动脉重度狭窄,其中21例为有症状颈动脉狭窄。22例患者住院期间接受24侧次颈动脉内膜切除术,术后随访并行TCD检查。结果:21例(23侧次)手术过程顺利,随访2~30个月,未再发TIA或脑梗死,19例症状减轻或缓解。1例术后死于脑栓塞和肺部感染。随访期复查TCD 1～2次,20例未发现明显再狭窄。结论:颈动脉内膜切除术对治疗重度颈内动脉狭窄,预防TIA和缺血性卒中有效。TCD可作为对重度颈内动脉狭窄的筛选、术中监测和术后随访的重要手段。     

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 Endarterectomy with Contralateral Carotid Occlusion: Is Shunting Necessary?

Background Controversy exists about the effect of contralateral carotid stenosis on the perioperative risks of carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Despite increased perioperative risk, the long-term outcome is improved in patients who undergo ipsilateral CEA with significant contralateral carotid stenosis. Traditionally, this involved shunting the ipsilateral carotid artery during the procedure. It was believed that this minimized the risk for cerebral ischemia. We believe selective shunting can be employed while still avoiding cerebral ischemia. This requires a reliable method of monitoring for ischemia. Intraoperative EEG monitoring has been proven to be a reliable method for monitoring for ischemic changes during a case.Methods A standard operative technique involving continuous EEG monitoring was used. We reviewed the records of carotid endarterectomies in the past 3 years. We present a series of 8 cases of CEA with contralateral occlusion in which shunting was selective based on EEG.Results Of eight patients, seven (87.5%) tolerated the procedure without EEG changes and thus did not requiring intraluminal shunting. There were no long-term complications in our series of patients.Conclusion We found that intraluminal carotid shunting during CEA with contralateral occlusion is not mandatory but neuroprotection methods need to be added to the operative procedure to ensure safety.     

对侧颈动脉闭塞对颈动脉内膜切除术围手术期疗效的影响

目的探讨对侧颈动脉闭塞对颈动脉内膜切除术（CEA）围手术期疗效的影响。方法回顾性分析2000年1月—2011年9月共296例于首都医科大学宣武医院因颈动脉狭窄行一侧CEA术患者的临床资料。根据是否伴有对侧颈动脉闭塞分为对侧闭塞组17例,对侧未闭塞组279例。分析两组术中应用转流管情况及术后30 d内的疗效。结果①对侧闭塞组术中转流管应用率为47.1%（8/17）,高于对侧未闭塞组的18.3%（51/279）,差异有统计学意义,P=0.010。②对侧闭塞组应用转流管的8例患者中,前交通动脉开放的有4例（4/8）,未用转流管的9例中,前交通动脉开放的有2例（2/9）,P=0.335。对侧闭塞组应用转流管的患者中,后交通动脉开放的有3例（3/8）,未用转流管者中后交通动脉开放的有9例（9/9）,差异有统计学意义,P=0.009。③279例对侧未闭塞组中,术后30 d卒中的发生率为3.2%（9/279）,病死率为1.4%（4/279）,脑神经损伤、心脏并发症的发生率均为3.6%（10/279）;对侧闭塞组除2例（11.8%）发生心脏并发症外,无其他并发症发生,但两组并发症及病死率的比较,差异均无统计学意义。结论伴有对侧颈动脉闭塞的患者,在CEA术中会增加转流管应用的比例,尤其是后交通动脉未开放的患者,但并不增加围手术期并发症及死亡的风险。     

Delay from symptoms to carotid endarterectomy

Objectives. To investigate the time between cerebrovascular symptom and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), what prolongs this time and if and when the patients suffer additional cerebrovascular events. Design. Observational. Setting. Single Centre study at a specialized Stroke Centre. Subjects. A total of 275 patients with ≥50% symptomatic carotid stenosis (according to the NASCET‐criteria) between 1 January 2004 and 31 March 2006. Main outcome measures. Time between cerebrovascular symptom and CEA, time between different parts of the investigation, additional cerebrovascular symptoms before CEA and as perioperative complication. Results. A total of 128 patients underwent CEA. The median time between symptom and CEA was 11.7 weeks in the beginning and 6.9 weeks at the end of the study. Seven per cent were operated within 2 weeks and 11% between 2 and 4 weeks after their cerebrovascular symptom. The time delays were most pronounced between symptom onset and arrival at the Umeå Stroke Centre from the secondary hospitals and between the decision to recommend CEA and the CEA. Twenty‐eight per cent of the patients who were intended for surgery suffered additional cerebrovascular events, 1.4% suffered a major stroke which excluded the indication of CEA and 3.0% of the CEA patients suffered a stroke with functional dependence within 30 days of the operation. Conclusions. The delay between symptom and CEA was substantially longer than the desired 2 weeks. Many patients suffered additional cerebrovascular events before CEA. The risk of a severe additional stroke before CEA was about the same as the risk of a severe complication from the CEA.