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.     

An evidence‐based review of the impact of periprocedural myocardial infarction in carotid revascularization

Landmark trials comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with medical therapy in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic stenosis of extracranial carotid arteries have favored carotid revascularization. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a minimally invasive option for revascularization of carotid artery stenoses and has been shown to be noninferior to CEA, regardless of patient symptom status. Debate continues regarding the importance of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) as an endpoint in carotid revascularization trials. Recent randomized comparisons of CEA and CAS pre‐specify PMI as an endpoint. Understanding PMI in CEA and CAS, the need for routine biomarker assessment surrounding both revascularization strategies, the effect of PMI on long‐term morbidity and mortality, and the groups most at risk for PMI are of critical importance when choosing a carotid revascularization strategy for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, since decreasing the incidence of PMI will make revascularization safer. This review examines available data regarding the relevance of PMI in vascular and carotid‐specific outcomes. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Treatment strategies for carotid stenosis in patients at increased risk for surgery

The purpose of carotid revascularization is stroke prevention. The merits of carotid revascularization as well as the type of revascularization are dependent on the “natural risk” and the “revascularization risk.” In general, the natural risk of stroke in any patient with carotid stenosis (CS) is dependent on the symptomatic status of the patient and CS severity. Contemporary choices for carotid revascularization include carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). Anatomical (hostile neck situations, severe bilateral CS, CEA restenosis) and clinical (severe cardiopulmonary diseases, prior cranial nerve injury) factors may increase the risk of CEA. Likewise, anatomical (complex aortic arch and brachiocephalic arterial anatomy, presence of thrombus, and heavy calcification) and clinical (need for heart surgery within 30 days) factors may increase the risk of CAS. Other factors such as the presence of symptomatic CS (transient ischemic attack or stroke within 6 months), decreased cerebral reserve, chronic kidney disease, and age older than 75 years may increase the risk of CEA and CAS. In general, symptomatic patients with severe CS exceed revascularization risk. In contrast, asymptomatic patients who are high risk for CEA should be considered for CAS because the natural risk of stroke should undergo careful assessment of baseline cognitive function, aortic arch and carotid artery anatomy, and likelihood of survival for 3 years. Patients who have normal cognitive function, favorable anatomy, and high likelihood of survival more than 3 years should be considered for CAS, whereas patients with multiple unfavorable features may be treated with optimal medical therapy, without revascularization.     

The carotid artery revascularization and endarterectomy (CARE) registry: Objectives,design, and implications

This is the first comprehensive national registry that will provide data characterizing contemporary results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has become the standard revascularization therapy to prevent stroke in patients with carotid artery disease, while carotid artery stenting (CAS) offers a percutaneous alternative in selected patients. Given the rapid growth in the numbers of CAS procedures being performed, there is a critical need for a national program to assess quality outcomes. The Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy (CARE) Registry was developed through a multispecialty collaboration resulting in a comprehensive data collection tool for carotid revascularization procedures. The intent of the CARE registry is to collect and analyze clinical data to measure clinical practice, patient outcomes, and enable quality improvement for carotid revascularization. Finally, the CARE Registry satisfies the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data reporting criteria for reimbursement. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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.     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗老年症状性颈动脉狭窄的研究

目的探讨颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)在老年症状性颈动脉狭窄中的应用。方法回顾分析我院108例老年症状性颈动脉狭窄行CEA患者的临床资料。结果 108例患者行CEA共125例次,成功率100%,其中颈动脉狭窄60%～75%者48例次,占38.4%,狭窄>75%者77例次,占61.6%,围手术期严重并发症2例,发生率1.9%,围手术期死亡1例,占0.9%。101条颈动脉术后1个月经颈多普勒超声显示,颈内动脉最狭窄处血管内径较术前明显增加[(6.11±1.36mmvs 1.59±0.82mm,P<0.05],狭窄程度由术前的(78±21)%降至(14±12)%,最狭窄处收缩期最大流速明显改善[(208±22)cm/s vs(93±18)cm/s,P<0.05]。81例患者术后18个月脑缺血症状较术前改善者75例(92.6%),再发短暂性脑缺血发作5例(6.2%),脑卒中1例(1.2%),发现术侧颈动脉>60%的再狭窄1例(1.2%),低于北美症状性颈动脉剥脱试验水平。结论 CEA是治疗老年症状性颈动脉狭窄的有效方法,在预防老年患者缺血性脑卒中等重大脑血管事件的发生中有重要价值。     

Carotid Artery Stenting–Historical Context,Trends, and Innovations

Surgical carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been proven effective in both primary and secondary stroke prevention and, until recently, has been considered the standard treatment approach for patients with severe carotid artery disease. Because of its technical limitations and less favorable outcomes, carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been offered preferably to patients considered to be too comorbid to undergo surgical treatment. However, CAS has evolved over time into a reliable method and is currently considered an alternative to CEA. The aim of this review was to discuss the historical aspects, trends, and innovations in CAS.     

Clinical Impact of Contralateral Carotid Occlusion in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Revascularization

BackgroundThe presence of a contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) is an established high-risk feature for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and is traditionally an indication for carotid artery stenting (CAS). Recent observational data have called into question whether CCO remains a high-risk feature for CEA.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine the clinical impact of CCO among patients undergoing CEA and CAS in a contemporary nationwide registry.MethodsAll patients undergoing CEA or CAS from 2007 to 2019 in the NCDR CARE (National Cardiovascular Data Registry Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy) and PVI (Peripheral Vascular Intervention) registries were included. The primary exposure was the presence of CCO. The outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Multivariable logistic regression and inverse-probability of treatment weighting were used to compare outcomes.ResultsAmong 58,423 patients who underwent carotid revascularization, 4,624 (7.9%) had a CCO. Of those, 68.9% (n = 3,185) underwent CAS and 31.1% (n = 1,439) underwent CEA. The average age of patients with CCO was 69.5 ± 9.7 years, 32.6% were women, 92.8% were Caucasian, 51.7% had a prior transient ischemic attack or stroke, and 45.4% presented with symptomatic disease. Over the study period, there was a 41.7% decrease in the prevalence of CCO among patients who underwent carotid revascularization (p < 0.001), but CAS remained the primary revascularization strategy. Unadjusted composite outcome rates were lower in patients with CCO after CAS (2.1%) than CEA (3.6%). Following adjustment, CCO was associated with a 71% increase in the odds of an adverse outcome after CEA (95% confidence interval: 1.27 to 2.30; p < 0.001) compared with no increase after CAS (adjusted odds ratio: 0.94; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.22; p = 0.64).ConclusionsCCO remains an important predictor of increased risk among patients undergoing CEA, but not CAS.     

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.     

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.     

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.