颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颅外颈内动脉重度狭窄近、远期疗效

目的　评价颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颅外颈内动脉重度狭窄近、远期疗效.方法　1993年5月至2000年6月,共20例患者在中山医院接受21次颈动脉内膜切除术.男性19例,女性1例,年龄47-76岁,平均64±9岁.其中缺血性中风患者7例,一过性脑缺血者11例,无神经症状者2例.所有患者均行术前颈动脉Duplex超声检查,19例同时行DSA检查,18例行MRA检查.狭窄度测定方法同NASCET.21侧手术的颈内动脉中,19侧狭窄≥70%,2侧狭窄60%-69%伴斑块溃疡.手术均采取颈丛麻醉,术中选择性地应用转流管和补片缝合.术后定期行超声检查和随访.结果　术后30天内无死亡和中风.围手术期有1例TIA和2例术后颅神经损伤.20例患者随访1-63月,平均31±20月.术后2年生存率和中风发生率为92.3%和0%,5年生存率和中风发生率为79.1%和12.5%.2例随访中超声检查发现手术侧颈内动脉50%-60%的再狭窄.结论　本组病例中,颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颅外颈内动脉重度狭窄取得了满意的围手术期结果和预防中风的远期疗效.     

经颅多谱勒监测在颈动脉内膜切除术中的作用

1临床资料 例1.患者,男,75岁,因左侧肢体无力20 d入院.查体:神志清晰,左上、下肢肌力Ⅳ级,病理征阴性.彩色多谱勒超声(CDUS)检查显示右颈内动脉起始段低回声斑块,面积狭窄率达76.8%.DSA检查发现颈总动脉-颈内动脉充盈缺损,直径狭窄率达70%.MRI示脑内多发性腔隙性梗死.全麻下行右颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA).术中试阻断右颈总动脉(CCA)和颈外动脉(ECA),经颅多谱勒(TCD)经颞窗监测右侧大脑中动脉血流速度(MCAFV)示阻断前60 cm/s,阻断后降至0 cm/s.术中在颈总和颈内动脉(ICA)间建立临时转流(shunt),MCAFV恢复至55 cm/s,顺利完成内膜切除和动脉切口缝合.患者麻醉苏醒后对答正确,口齿清晰,肢体肌力同术前.术后1 w颈动脉CDUS复查显示颈动脉内膜光滑,管腔无狭窄,血流通畅.术后1、3、6、12个月复查无脑缺血发作,CDUS检查未见颈动脉再狭窄.     

颈动脉内膜切除术治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄40例总结

目的探讨应用颈动脉内膜切除术（CEA）治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄的早期疗效和体会。方法 40例症状性颈动脉狭窄行CEA手术的患者纳入本研究。所有病例均具有脑缺血的临床症状。全组均经颈部彩色多普勒成像、经颅多普勒超声初期筛查检出,9例、3例、28例分别应用增强磁共振血管成像、CT血管造影、数字减影血管造影确诊为颈动脉粥样斑块形成并颈动脉狭窄。40例颅外段颈动脉狭窄程度均≥70%,其中合并溃疡病变5例,一侧颈内动脉狭窄伴另一侧颈内动脉完全闭塞1例。患者全部行全身麻醉联合颈丛神经阻滞麻醉。术中全部放置动脉临时分流管,行颈动脉血管补片成形术32例。结果全组围手术期无死亡病例,脑缺血症状明显改善31例（77.5%）,症状好转9例（22.5%）。术后并发高灌注综合征1例,血流动力学不稳定1例。症状性颈动脉狭窄围手术期并发症5.0%（符合美国AHA≤6%的标准）。40例均获随访,在术后6周及3个月复查双侧颈部血管超声,无1例血管再狭窄发生。结论 CEA是治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄安全且有效的方法。     

颈动脉硬化内膜剥脱术治疗脑梗塞

目的：总结和介绍颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗颈动脉硬化狭窄或闭塞致脑缺血的经验。方法：颈动脉硬化性狭窄或闭塞患者20例在全麻下行颈动脉内膜剥脱术。结果：20例中，1例因术中发现颈内动脉颅外段已完全纤维化而放弃手术，1例术后半月病变颈内动脉再闭塞，其余18例疗效满意,未再发生缺血性脑卒中。结论：颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗颈动脉硬化性狭窄或闭塞致脑缺血有效、安全、经济。     

高危颈动脉狭窄患者的血管内支架成形术治疗

目的 :总结血管内支架成形术治疗高危颈动脉狭窄患者的可行性和安全性及短期疗效。 方法 :自 2 0 0 0年 10月至2 0 0 1年 12月 ,共采用血管内支架植入术治疗高危颈动脉狭窄患者 2 6例 ,其中 7例为无症状患者。结果 :所有患者均成功地植入支架。术前、术后平均狭窄程度分别为 (82 .3± 5 .1) %、(14 .0± 3.1) %。 1例出现同侧颞叶梗死 ,但恢复良好。其余无手术并发症发生。短期随访 10～ 2 2个月无 1例缺血再发作 ,影像学检查随访 6～ 18个月无再狭窄。结论 :血管内支架成形术治疗颈动脉狭窄安全有效 ,适合颈动脉内膜切除术高危的患者     

内膜剥脱术和血管成形术治疗颈动脉狭窄及疗效分析

目的研究颈动脉内膜剥脱术和成形术对颈动脉狭窄患者的治疗结果。方法2003年12月至2006年6月,28例颈动脉狭窄患者行动脉内膜剥脱术及血管成形术。术前术后应用彩色多普勒血流显像和经颅多普勒超声测定患者颈内动脉管腔内径、血流速度、血流量及大脑中动脉血流速度。结果所有患者术后颈内动脉管腔内径达正常数值,血流动力学恢复正常,未出现严重并发症,未见动脉瘤形成。结论颈动脉内膜剥脱术是治疗颈动脉狭窄的有效的方法之一,应用血管成形术可提高远期疗效。     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术49例报告

目的：为了介绍颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗颈动脉狭窄和闭塞的经验，材料和方法：1991年1月－2002年11月，共进行49例颈动脉内膜剥脱术，男35例，女14例，年龄58－79岁，平均71．2岁，所有病人均经颅脑Doppler超声检查或彩色B超筛选，颈动脉造影和CT颈动脉三维成像确诊，颈内动脉狭窄程度均＞80％，左侧30例，右侧19例，其中5例为双侧，一侧颈内动脉完全闭塞6例，有12例病人为分叉部狭窄，29例CT发现有“腔隙性脑梗塞”，13例病人有局灶性脑梗塞，1例昏迷病人为右侧大面积脑梗塞，15例有“糖尿病”史，18例有“高血压病”史，所有病人在全麻下进行了颈动脉内膜剥脱术，其中5例进行了补片，2例应用自体大隐静脉行颈总动脉与颈内动脉搭桥术，结果：1例于术后第10天突发“心肌梗死”死亡。1例术前昏迷于术后第1天清醒，且能简单发音，1周后能扶床沿站立，1例声嘶，术后1个月恢复正常，另有2例颈部血肿，有2例因颈内动脉远端已完全闭塞，剥除后无回血，术后病情无改善，其他病例均无明显并发症，恢复良好，结论：颈动脉内膜剥脱术仍然是治疗颈动脉狭窄最简单，最有效的方法。     

颈内动脉假性闭塞手术治疗的单中心经验总结

 目的 评价颈内动脉假性闭塞(atheromatous pseudo-occlusion, APO)手术治疗的安全性及有效性。方法 对复旦大学附属中山医院2011年12月至2016年6月间接受颈动脉内膜切除术的颈动脉狭窄患者资料进行回顾性分析,其中研究组为APO患者32例,对照组为重度狭窄(70%~99%)患者124例。对两组围手术期各主要及次要并发症、随访中的同侧缺血性脑卒中复发率、再狭窄率及死亡率进行比较。结果 围手术期主要并发症:APO组发生心梗1例(3.1%),无缺血性脑卒中、脑出血及死亡病例;对照组发生缺血性脑卒中2例(1.4%),心肌梗死6例(4.2%),死亡1例(0.7%)。次要并发症:APO组发生切口渗血1例(3.1%),肺部感染2例(6.3%),高灌注综合征2例(6.3%);对照组发生切口渗血3例(2.1%),切口感染2例(1.4%),肺部感染4例(2.8%),颅神经损伤2例(1.4%),高灌注综合征2例(1.4%)。术后随访6~60个月,平均随访(35.3±17.5)个月。APO组1例(3.1%)同侧缺血性脑卒中复发,4例(12.5%)发生再狭窄,死亡3例(9.4%),死因均非神经系统疾病。对照组同侧缺血性脑卒中复发8例(5.6%),再狭窄9例(6.3%),死亡8例(5.6%)。两组间围手术期各主要及次要并发症,随访中的同侧缺血性脑卒中复发率、再狭窄率、死亡率的差异均无统计学意义。结论 对APO患者行颈动脉内膜切除术治疗安全有效,围手术期及随访结果满意。     

同期颈动脉内膜剥除及冠脉搭桥联合手术

【目的】探讨以颈动脉内膜剥除及冠状动脉搭桥联合手术同期治疗冠状动脉狭窄合并颈动脉狭窄的疗效 ,手术适应症及手术原则。【方法】自 1999年 3月至 2 0 0 1年 12月期间 ,共有 5例患者接受了联合手术 ,其中男性 3例 ,女性 2例 ,年龄为 6 5～ 71岁 (平均 6 8 8岁 )。冠状动脉造影显示 5例患者均有严重的冠状动脉 3支血管病变 ,3例合并有 5 0 %以上的左主干狭窄。颈动脉造影显示 4例为 70 %以上的颈内动脉狭窄 ,1例为 99%的颈总动脉狭窄。手术在同期全身麻醉下进行 ,先完成颈动脉内膜剥除 ,再施行冠状动脉搭桥术。【结果】无 1例手术死亡 ,术后未发现脑部并发症。随访 1～ 17个月 ,平均 14 4个月 ,有 1例患者手术后 40天死于消化道大出血 ,4例恢复良好 ,生活质量明显提高。【结论】颈动脉内膜剥除及冠状动脉搭桥联合手术方法简便易行 ,经济安全 ,可减少脑部并发症 ,免除病人再次手术的痛苦 ,是一种有效的治疗方法 ,手术在同期麻醉下进行 ,在施行冠状动脉搭桥之前先完成颈动脉内膜剥除术。对有易发因素的患者 ,应做术前颈动脉筛选。     

颈动脉内膜切除术对症状性颈动脉狭窄的改善作用研究

目的　研究颈动脉内膜切除术（carotid endarterctomy,CEA)对症状性颈动脉狭窄的改善作用。方法　选取大连市中心医院2015年7月至2017年11月收治的30例症状性颈动脉重度狭窄患者,进行颈部血管超声筛查,记录术前颈动脉收缩期峰值流速,行头颈部血管造影（CTA、MRA或DSA）检查证实 30例患者均为重度狭窄,狭窄率均＞70%。行颈动脉内膜切除术。术后1个月随访,再次行颈动脉超声及头颈部血管造影检查,比较术前与术后的狭窄率及颈动脉收缩期峰值流速。结果　所有入组患者手术均成功实施,术后1个月无再狭窄,均未出现一过性脑缺血发作。术后狭窄率与收缩期峰值流速与术前相比［(6.2±1.0)% vs. (80.0±0.5)%,(91.3±12.0) cm/s vs. (207.0±15.6) cm/s］,差异具有统计学意义,P<0.05。结论　颈动脉内膜切除术对症状性颈动脉狭窄患者具有明显改善作用。     

Early and late outcomes in patients with severe extracranial internal carotid stenosis undergoing carotid endarterectomy

Ｃａｒｏｔｉｄｅｎｄａｒｔｅｒｅｃｔｏｍｙ (ＣＥＡ )ｈａｓｂｅｅｎｓｈｏｗｎｔｏｂｅｓｕｐｅｒｉｏｒｔｏｍｅｄｉｃａｌｔｒｅａｔｍｅｎｔｉｎｐａｔｉｅｎｔｓｗｉｔｈｓｙｍｐｔｏｍａｔｉｃｏｒａｓｙｍｐｔｏｍａｔｉｃｈｉｇｈ ｇｒａｄｅｃａｒｏｔｉｄｓｔｅｎｏｓｉｓ ＡｌｔｈｏｕｇｈＣＥＡｒｅｍａｉｎｓｔｈｅｍｏｓｔｃｏｍｍｏｎｌｙｐｅｒｆｏｒｍｅｄｏｐｅｒａｔｉｏｎｆｏｒｐｅｒｉｐｈｅｒａｌａｒｔｅｒｉａｌｄｉｓｅａｓｅｓｉｎｔｈｅＷｅｓｔ,ｉｔｉｓｎｏｔａｓｐｏｐｕｌａｒｉｎＣｈｉｎａ Ｔｈｉｓｐ…     

Early and late outcomes in Hong Kong Chinese patients undergoing carotid endar terectomy

Ｔｈｅｂｅｎｅｆｉｃｉａｌｅｆｆｅｃｔｏｆｃａｒｏｔｉｄｅｎｄａｒｔｅｒｅｃｔｏｍｙ (ＣＥＡ)ｉｎｐａｔｉｅｎｔｓｗｉｔｈｓｅｖｅｒｅｃａｒｏｔｉｄｓｔｅｎｏｓｉｓｈａｓｂｅｅｎｗｅｌｌｄｏｃｕｍｅｎｔｅｄｉｎｐｒｏｓｐｅｃｔｉｖｅｒａｎｄｏｍｉｚｅｄｃｏｎｔｒｏｌｌｅｄｔｒｉａｌｓ ,1,2ａｎｄｔｈｅｎｕｍｂｅｒｏｆＣＥＡｐｒｏｃｅｄｕｒｅｓｐｅｒｆｏｒｍｅｄｉｎｔｈｅＷｅｓｔｈａｓｂｅｅｎｉｎｃｒｅａｓｉｎｇｓｉｎｃｅｔｈａｔｔｉｍｅ 3,4 　Ｉｔｉｓｎｏｗｔｈｅｍｏｓｔｃｏｍｍｏｎｐｅｒｉｐｈｅ…     

A study of 510 carotid endarterectomies and a review of the recent carotid endarterectomy trials

The release of several randomized trials comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to other methods of stroke prevention in the early 1990s established CEA as the "gold standard" in the prevention of stroke from carotid occlusive disease. This study examines 510 of the CEAs performed by the first author at Charleston Area Medical Center in Charleston, W. Va., from 1991-99, which were part of three prospective randomized CEA trials at CAMC. All patients were observed clinically and underwent postoperative color duplex ultrasound scans at 30 days, six months, 12 months, and every year thereafter to assess the presence of recurrent stenoses. The overall perioperative stroke rate in the whole series was 2.7% (14/510). The incidence of perioperative ipsilateral stroke was 4.6% for CEA with primary closure vs. 1.9% for CEA with patching (p < 0.05). Patching using PTFE or vein patch closure had the lowest incidence of perioperative stroke rate (0.7%). Primary closure had a statistically significant higher incidence of recurrent stenoses than PTFE or vein patch closure (28% vs. 2.9%, p < 0.0001). The incidence of ipsilateral stroke and recurrent stenosis using the Hemashield patch was higher than either PTFE or vein patch closure. As the indications for CEA expand, the safety, utility, and cost-effectiveness of the procedure must be closely monitored at each institution. However, as shown in this study, CEA (using PTFE or vein patch closure) is a safe, effective, and well-established tool in the treatment of stroke in the 21st century.     

颈内动脉狭窄的手术治疗

目的总结颈内动脉内膜切除术(CEA)治疗颈内动脉重度狭窄的临床经验。方法回顾性分析1998年10月~2006年10月在我科行CEA的95例患者(97次)的临床资料,97次均为初次手术,无二次手术;65例术前有短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA),21例术前曾患脑梗死。所有患者术前经选择性颈动脉造影证实狭窄程度均大于70%,其中50例狭窄程度大于95%,35例对侧伴有颈动脉狭窄或闭塞。颈动脉分叉位置平第2颈椎水平5例,第2颈椎水平以上1例。43例患者术前行冠状动脉造影证实合并冠心病,其中18例同期行冠状动脉搭桥术。结果所有术前有临床症状的患者术后有较明显改善,表现为TIA消失、记忆力明显好转和语言障碍恢复等;1例患者术后出现舌下神经损伤,该患者颈动脉分叉位于第2颈椎水平以上。术后随访6~60个月,1例在随访期间因心脏病死亡,其余患者病情稳定。结论CEA是治疗颈内动脉重度狭窄的安全有效的方法。     

颈动脉支架的安全性和有效性

目的评价颈动脉支架植入安全性和有效性。方法前瞻性观察70位中国人所接受的76次颈动脉内膜旋切术 (CEA),对CAS的安全性及有效性做初步探讨。人选者均属高危患者,包括不稳定型心绞痛、同侧CEA史、对侧颈动脉狭窄、颈动脉放疗后狭窄及其他严重的合并症。患者于术前、术后及半年后随访时均接受独立的神经专科检查;于远期随访时复查脑血管造影。结果手术成功率为100％;术前平均狭窄程度达(82±18)％,术后狭窄程度下降至(5±10)％。所有患者共发生3次小卒中(5．7％),均无大卒中事件;住院期间及术后30 d内均无心肌梗死及死亡事件。平均随访期达 (20±12)月;2例患者发生无症状颈动脉再狭窄;2例患者发生非Q波型心肌梗死;两例患者因非神经源性因素死亡;3 例患者发生小卒中;远期随访未发现大卒中。结论在中国人群中,经皮颈动脉支架植入术是安全可行的,它的远期再狭窄率亦低。     

颈动脉支架置入术对无症状性颈动脉高度狭窄患者认知功能的影响

目的：探讨颈动脉支架置入术对无症状性颈动脉高度狭窄患者认知功能的影响。方法选择2009年9月至2012年12月期间在该科住院患者156例（狭窄程度大于或等于70％）,行颈动脉支架置入术。在支架置入术前1周内及置入术后3个月采用阿尔茨海默病评估量表认知部分（ADAS‐Cog）、简易智能量表（MMSE）、连线测验（TMTa、TMTb）对患者的认知功能进行评估。结果所有患者均安全、成功的置入颈动脉支架,其中1例患者术后失访。与术前相比,术后3个月患者的认知功能均有所改善,术前术后比较：ADAS‐Cog[（6．60±2．04）分vs．（5．16±1．63）分,P＜0．01],MMSE[（26．32±1．06）分vs．（27．05±1．46）分,P＜0．01],TMTa[（108．94±17．42）分vs．（94．70±20．27）分,P＜0．01],TMTb[（178．65±21．77）分vs．（148．92±23．65）分,P＜0．01],术后3个月内无新发脑梗死。结论颈动脉狭窄可能为认知功能减退的原因之一,颈动脉支架置入术可以改善无症状颈动脉狭窄患者认知功能。     

The appropriate use of carotid endarterectomy

FOR THE FIRST 30 YEARS AFTER CAROTID ENDARTERECTOMY WAS FIRST DEVELOPED, anecdotal evidence was used to identify patients with internal carotid artery disease for whom this procedure would be appropriate. More recently, the appropriateness of carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic patients and asymptomatic subjects has emerged from 7 randomized trials. Risk of stroke and benefit from the procedure are greatest for symptomatic patients with at least 70% stenosis of the internal carotid artery. Within this group, carotid endarterectomy is most beneficial for the following patients: otherwise healthy elderly patients, those with hemispheric transient ischemic attack, those with tandem extracranial and intracranial lesions and those without evidence of collateral vessels. Risk of perioperative stroke and death is higher in the following groups, although they still benefit: patients with widespread leukoaraiosis, those with occlusion of the contralateral internal carotid artery and those with intraluminal thrombus. Patients with 50% to 69% stenosis experience lesser benefit, and some other groups may even be harmed by carotid endarterectomy, including women and patients with transient monocular blindness only. The procedure is indicated for patients presenting with lacunar stroke and for those with a nearly occluded internal carotid artery, but the benefit is muted. Patients with less than 50% stenosis do not benefit. In the largest randomized trial of asymptomatic subjects, the perioperative risk of stroke and death was very low (1.5%), but the results indicated that a prohibitively high number of subjects (83) must be treated to prevent one stroke in 2 years. The subsequent literature reported higher perioperative risks (2.8% to 5.6%). In asymptomatic individuals nearly half of the strokes that occur may be due to heart and small-vessel disease. These limitations counter any potential benefit. Another trial is in progress and may identify subgroups of asymptomatic subjects who would benefit. Meanwhile, most individuals without symptoms fare better with medical care.     

颈动脉内膜剥脱患者围手术期急性冠脉综合征的诊断与治疗

目的 探讨颈动脉内膜剥脱术围手术期急性冠脉综合征的发生率、诊断与治疗策略.方法 回顾性分析2003--2009年北京协和医院血管外科收治的143例重度动脉硬化性颈动脉狭窄患者,共施行159例次颈动脉内膜剥脱术围手术期发生急性冠脉综合征的相关临床资料.结果 年龄40～86岁,平均(66±9)岁.术后30d内出现脑卒中5例(3.1%),有症状颈动脉狭窄组术后30 d卒中/死亡4例(3.6%),无症状颈动脉狭窄组1例(2.1%).13例(8.2%)围手术期发生急性冠脉综合征,12例经药物治疗缓解,1例行冠脉球囊扩张并植入支架后康复,无1例死亡.糖尿病史(RR=7.727,P=0.001)、吸烟史(RR=8.138,P=0.020)和既往心梗病史(RR=4.567,P=0.027)是颈动脉内膜剥脱术围手术期发生急性冠脉综合征的显著危险因素.结论 急性冠脉综合征是颈动脉内膜剥脱术围手术期重要的非神经系统并发症,糖尿病史、吸烟史和既往心梗病史是发生急性冠脉综合征的显著危险因素,综合运用多种策略预防治疗急性冠脉综合征对增加颈动脉内膜剥脱术的安全性具有重要意义.     

Guidelines for the use of carotid endarterectomy: current recommendations from the Canadian Neurosurgical Society

OBJECTIVE: To develop guidelines on the suitability of patients for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). OPTIONS: For atherosclerotic carotid stenosis that has resulted in retinal or cerebral ischemia: antiplatelet drugs or CEA. For asymptomatic carotid stenosis: CEA or no surgery. OUTCOMES: Risk of stroke and death. EVIDENCE: Trials comparing CEA with nonsurgical management of carotid stenosis. VALUES: Greatest weight was given to findings that were highly significant both statistically and clinically. BENEFITS, HARMS AND COSTS: Benefit: reduction in the risk of stroke. Major harms: iatrogenic stroke, cardiac complications and death secondary to surgical manipulations of the artery or the systemic stress of surgery. Costs were not considered. RECOMMENDATIONS: CEA is clearly recommended for patients with surgically accessible internal carotid artery (ICA) stenoses equal to or greater than 70% of the more distal, normal ICA lumen diameter, providing: (1) the stenosis is symptomatic, causing transient ischemic attacks or nondisabling stroke (including retinal infarction); (2) there is no worse distal, ipsilateral, carotid distribution arterial disease; (3) the patient is in stable medical condition; and (4) the rates of major surgical complications (stroke and death) among patients of the treating surgeon are less than 6%. Surgery is not recommended for asymptomatic stenoses of less than 60%. Symptomatic stenoses of less than 70% and asymptomatic stenoses of greater than 60% are uncertain indications. For these indications, consideration should be given to (1) patient presentation, age and medical condition; (2) plaque characteristics such as degree of narrowing, the presence of ulceration and any documented worsening of the plaque over time; (3) other cerebral arterial stenoses or occlusions, or cerebral infarcts identified through neuroimaging; and (4) surgical complication rates at the institution. CEA should not be considered for asymptomatic stenoses unless the combined stroke and death rate among patients of the surgeon is less than 3%. VALIDATION: These guidelines generally agree with position statements prepared by other organizations in recent years, and with a January 1995 consensus statement by a group of experts assembled by the American Heart Association.