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.     

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.     

Treatment of asymptomatic carotid artery disease: similar early outcomes after carotid stenting for high-risk patients and endarterectomy for standard-risk patients

BACKGROUND: The role of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) in the treatment of asymptomatic patients with carotid disease remains controversial. The purpose of this report is to compare outcomes in asymptomatic patients treated with CAS and carotid endarterectomy (CEA). This was the initial experience performing CAS for most of the surgeons. For comparison, we also report our outcomes in standard-risk patients treated concurrently with CEA during the same period of time. METHODS: A retrospective, nonrandomized review of asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA or CAS at Washington University Medical Center in St. Louis was done. Patients with >70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis treated between September 2003 and April 2005 were identified. CEA was the first therapeutic consideration in all patients. CAS was reserved for high-risk patients. Thirty-day outcomes of stroke or death were recorded. During this time interval, 248 patients were treated including with 93 CAS and with 145 CEA. Symptomatic or clinically detected adverse outcomes such as myocardial infarction (MI), arrhythmia, renal failure, or pulmonary complications were noted but were not the primary end points of this review. This study addresses only the periprocedural outcomes of CEA and CAS in asymptomatic patients. No data >30-day follow-up are included. RESULTS: During this period, 93 CAS and 145 CEA procedures were done in asymptomatic patients. Patient characteristics in both groups were similar. Carotid protection devices were used in 91.4% of CAS patients. The results in the CAS group showed one death (1.1%) and one stroke (1.1%). In the CEA group, three strokes occurred (2.1%, P = 0.9999), one associated with death (0.7%, P = 0.9999). The CAS group had 1.34 +/- 0.83 risk factors vs 0.39 +/- 0.58 in the CEA group (P < .0001). Median CAS and CEA length of stay was 1 day. CONCLUSIONS: CAS for asymptomatic carotid stenosis demonstrated equivalent outcomes compared with CEA, despite CAS being reserved for use in a disadvantaged subset of high-risk patients owing to anatomic risk factors or medical comorbidities. These results suggest CAS should be considered a reasonable treatment option in the high-risk but asymptomatic patient. Enthusiasm for CAS should be tempered by the recognition that long-term outcomes in CAS-treated asymptomatic patients remain unknown.     

Cardiac troponin I assessment and late cardiac complications after carotid stenting or endarterectomy

PURPOSE: When compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA), percutaneous carotid angioplasty with stent replacement (CAS) is a less invasive technique in the treatment of carotid stenosis. However, periprocedural hemodynamic instability still remains a challenge. This instability might lead to myocardial damage, which is now measured accurately by using cardiac troponin I (CTnI). METHODS: This study was designed to compare the periprocedural variation of CTnI in 150 consecutive patients scheduled to undergo CEA (n = 75) or CAS (n = 75). The levels of CTnI were measured until the third postoperative day in all patients. Short-term (1 month) and long-term (up to 5 years) postoperative cardiac outcome were assessed by means of chart review, regular follow-ups, and telephone calls. RESULTS: There was not any statistically significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the demographic characteristics and preprocedural medical status. The incidence of increase of CTnI (>0.5 ng/mL) was significantly higher in the CEA group (13%) compared with that in the CAS group (1%; P = .001). During the acute postprocedural period, the CAS group was significantly more prone to hypotension, requiring vasopressor therapy, whereas the CEA group had more hypertension, necessitating hypotensive medications (P < .001). At 5 years, the overall incidence of major cardiac complications (nonfatal myocardial infarction and death related to cardiac origin) was significantly more frequent in the CEA group (20% vs 5%, P < .01). CONCLUSION: The results of our study suggest that CAS yielded less myocardial damage in the short and long term when compared with CEA. Larger randomized multicenter trials with long-term outcomes are necessary to confirm our findings.     

高危颈动脉狭窄患者内膜剥脱术和支架术的对比分析

目的对比颈动脉内膜剥脱术（carotid endarterectomy,CEA）与颈动脉支架置入术（carotid artery stenting,CAS）在治疗高危颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄中的作用。方法对58例颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者进行回顾性对照研究。其中32例为CEA组;26例为CAS组。术后30d、6个月、1年均进行颈部B超、CTA复查或DSA和神经系统检查。初级观察终点设定为术后30d内发生死亡、卒中事件、心血管不良事件,或随访6个月内的死亡或同侧卒中事件;次级观察终点为与CEA或CAS相关的并发症,或1年内的重度再狭窄。比较2组术后治疗的效果。结果CEA组有3例达到初级观察终点,发生率为9.4%;CAS组有4例达到初级观察点,累积发生率为15.4%（χ2=0.086,P=0.769）。CEA组有4例达到次级观察终点,发生率为12.5%;CAS组有4例达到次级观察终点,发生率为15.4%（χ2=0.000,P=1.000）。结论CAS在治疗高危颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄时,在安全性和有效性方面与CEA是相同的。     

Carotid endarterectomy in SAPPHIRE-eligible high-risk patients: implications for selecting patients for carotid angioplasty and stenting

OBJECTIVES: Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been proposed as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients excluded from the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial and the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study and in those considered at high risk for CEA. In light of recently released CAS data in patients at high risk, we reviewed our experience with CEA. METHODS: The records for consecutive patients who underwent CEA between 1998 and 2002 were retrospectively reviewed, and risk was stratified according to inclusion and exclusion criteria from a "high-risk" or CAS-CEA trial, The Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy (SAPPHIRE) trial. RESULTS: Of 776 CEAs performed, 323 (42%) were considered high risk, on the basis of criteria including positive stress test (n = 109, 14%), age older than 80 years (n = 85, 11%), contralateral carotid occlusion (n = 66, 9%), pulmonary dysfunction (n = 56, 7%), high cervical lesion (n = 36, 5%), and repeat carotid operation (n = 27, 3%). Other high-risk criteria included recent myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac surgery, or class III or IV cardiac status; left ventricular ejection fraction less than 30%; contralateral laryngeal palsy; and previous neck irradiation (each <1.5%). Clinical presentation was similar in the high-risk and low-risk groups: asymptomatic (73% versus 73%), transient ischemic attack (23% vs 22%), and previous stroke (4% vs 5%). The overall postoperative stroke rate was 1.4% (symptomatic, 2.9%; asymptomatic, 0.9%). Comparison of high-risk and low-risk CEAs demonstrated no statistical difference in the stroke rate. Factors associated with significantly increased stroke risk included cervical radiation therapy, class III or IV angina, symptomatic presentation, and age 60 years or younger. Overall mortality was 0.3% (symptomatic, 0.5%; asymptomatic, 0.2%), not significantly different between the high-risk (0.6%) and low-risk groups (0.0%). Non-Q-wave MI was more frequent in the high-risk group (3.1 vs 0.9%; P <.05). A composite cluster of adverse clinical events (death, stroke, MI) was more frequent in the symptomatic high-risk group (9.3% vs 1.6%; P <.005), but not in the asymptomatic cohort. There was a trend for more major cranial nerve injuries in patients with local risk factors, such as high carotid bifurcation, repeat operation, and cervical radiation therapy (4.6% vs 1.7%; P <.13). In 121 patients excluded on the basis of synchronous or immediate subsequent operations, who also would have been excluded from SAPPHIRE, the overall rates for stroke (1.65%; P =.69), death (1.65%; P =.09), and MI (0.83%; P =.71) were not significantly different from those in the study population. CONCLUSIONS: CEA can be performed in patients at high risk, with stroke and death rates well within accepted standards. These data question the use of CAS as an alternative to CEA, even in patients at high risk.     

Carotid angioplasty and stenting, success relies on appropriate patient selection

OBJECTIVE: Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is a percutaneous alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treating patients with carotid artery stenosis. This study sought to evaluate whether patients at increased perioperative risk for CEA may be treated with CAS while maintaining equivalent outcomes. METHODS: This study was a nonblinded, retrospective analysis of data obtained from September 2002 to present in the CAS group and from January 1997 to present in the CEA group. Two hundred thirty-one CAS and 647 CEA procedures were performed. Patients were selected for CAS based on criteria that placed them at increased risk for standard CEA surgery. Except for percentage women treated, baseline demographics did not differ between patients treated with CAS and CEA: mean age (72.0 years [range 46-94] vs 70.5 years [range 42-92], P = NS), mean follow-up (12.8 +/- 11.8 months vs 8.7 +/- 10.0 months, P = NS) and percentage women treated (41.4% vs 32.3%, P = .03). Cerebral protection devices were used in 228/231 patients treated with CAS, and each patient underwent an NIH Stroke Scale assessment 24 hours postoperatively and at 30 days follow-up by an independent observer. RESULTS: Preoperative neurologic symptoms did not differ between patients treated with CAS and CEA: amaurosis fugax (6.06% vs 6.96%, P = NS), transient ischemic attacks (13.4% vs 13.9%, P = NS), strokes (19.9% vs 14.1%, P = NS) and total symptoms (27.7% vs 30.5%, P = NS). Due to the selection of patient groups based on predefined clinical characteristics, factors associated with an increased risk of complications from standard CEA surgery were generally more prevalent in patients treated with CAS: neck irradiation (6.06% vs 1.24%, P < .001), neck dissection for cancer therapy (7.8% vs 1.5%, P < .001), prior ipsilateral CEA (15.2% vs 3.4%, P 相似文献   

Safety and efficacy of carotid angioplasty and stenting in high-risk patients

Performance of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) may be associated with an increased risk in patients with significant comorbid medical conditions, neck irradiation, or previous CEA. This study compared the results of CEA with carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) in high-risk patients treated for carotid stenosis. Five hundred forty-five patients who underwent CEA and 148 patients who underwent CAS were evaluated. For patients undergoing CEA, general anesthesia was used in 91 per cent, electroencephalographic monitoring was used in 63 per cent, and shunting was performed in 19.8 per cent. Cerebral protection devices were used in 145/148 of CAS cases, and self-expanding stents were used in all cases. Evaluated end points included major cardiovascular events, and a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction for the duration of the follow-up. Mean follow-up was 18 months for CAS and 23 months for CEA. Significant differences were present in patient age (CAS, 75 +/- 11.0 years vs CEA, 71 +/- 9 years, P = 0.012), however, there were no significant differences (P = NS) in gender or smoking history. The mean modified Goldman Score was significantly higher for CAS (21.1 +/- 14.8 [95% confidence interval = 18, 24]) than for CEA (6.3 +/- 6.8 [95% confidence interval = 5.7, 6.9]; P = 0.0001) patients. The incidence of periprocedural complications did not vary significantly between patients treated with CAS (CVA, 1.4%; myocardial infarction [MI], 1.4%; death, 0.7%; CVA/MI/death, 3.4%) compared with CEA (CVA, 1.8%; MI, 1.1%; death, 0.4%; CVA/MI/death, 4.0%). CAS is equivalent to CEA in safety and efficacy, even when performed in patients who may be at increased surgical risk.     

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.     

Carotid artery stenting: analysis of data for 105 patients at high risk

OBJECTIVES: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been recommended as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) by some clinicians. However, recently published clinical trials have reported 30-day stroke and death rates of 10% to 12%. This prompted review of our experience with CAS in patients at high risk, to document our results and guide further use of CAS. METHODS: From September 1996 to the present, we performed 114 consecutive CAS procedures in 105 patients. Sixty-three patients were men (60%) and 42 patients were women (40%), with mean age of 70 years (range, 45-93 years). Indications for CAS included recurrent stenosis after previous CEA in 74 patients (65%), primary lesions in 32 patients at high risk (28%), and carotid stenosis with previous ipsilateral radiation therapy in 8 patients (7%). Asymptomatic stenosis (>80%) was managed in 70 patients (61%), and symptomatic lesions (>50%) were treated in 44 patients (39%). RESULTS: CAS was technically successful in all patients. Mean severity of stenosis before CAS was 87% +/- 6%, compared with 9% +/- 4% after CAS. Two patients (1.9%) died, 1 of reperfusion-intracerebral hemorrhage and 1 of myocardial infarction 10 days after discharge; and 1 patient (0.95%) had a stroke (retinal infarction), for a 30-day stroke and death rate of 2.85%. Two patients (1.9%) had transient neurologic events. No cranial nerve deficits were noted. No neurologic complications have been noted in the last 27 patients (26%). CONCLUSIONS: A 30-day stroke and death rate of 2.85% in our experience demonstrates acceptability of CAS as an alternative to repeat operation or primary CEA in patients at high risk or in patients with radiation-induced stenosis. We recommend further clinical investigation of CAS and participation in clinical trials by vascular surgeons.     

Outcome of carotid stent-assisted angioplasty versus open surgical repair of recurrent carotid stenosis

PURPOSE: We compared outcome and durability of carotid stent-assisted angioplasty (CAS) with open surgical repair (ie, repeat carotid endarterectomy [CEA]) to treat recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS). METHODS: A retrospective review of anatomic and neurologic outcomes was carried out after 27 repeat CEA procedures (1993-2002) and 52 CAS procedures (1997-2002) performed to treat high-grade internal carotid artery (ICA) RCS after CEA. The incidence of intervention because of symptomatic RCS was similar (repeat CEA, 63%; CAS, 60%), but the interval from primary CEA to repeat intervention was greater (P <.05) in the repeat CEA group (83 +/- 15 months) compared with the CAS group (50 +/- 8 months). In the CAS group, 17 of 52 arteries (33%) were judged not to be surgical candidates because of surgically inaccessible high lesions (n = 8), medical comorbid conditions (n = 4), neck irradiation (n = 3), or previous surgery with cranial nerve deficit or stroke (n = 2). Three patients who underwent repeat CEA had lesions not appropriate for treatment with CAS. RESULTS: Overall 30-day morbidity was similar after CAS (12%; death due to ipsilateral intracranial hemorrhage, 1; nondisabling stroke, 1; reversible neurologic deficits or transient ischemic attack, 2; access site complication, 2). and repeat CEA (11%; no death; nondisabling stroke, 1; reversible cranial nerve injury, 1; cervical hematoma, 1). Combined stroke and death rate was 3.7% for repeat CEA and 5.7% for CAS (P >.1). All duplex ultrasound scans obtained within 3 months after CEA and CAS demonstrated patent ICA and velocity spectra of less than 50% stenosis. During follow-up, no repeat CEA (mean, 39 months) or CAS (mean, 26 months) repair demonstrated ICA occlusion, but two patients (8%) who underwent repeat CEA and 4 patients (8%) who underwent CAS required balloon or stent angioplasty because of 80% RCS. At last follow-up, no patient had ipsilateral stroke and all ICA remain patent. At duplex scanning, stenosis-free (<50% diameter reduction) ICA patency at 36 months was 75% after repeat CEA and 57% after CAS (P =.26, log-rank test). CONCLUSIONS: Carotid angioplasty for treatment of high-grade stenotic ICA after CEA resulted in similar anatomic and neurologic outcomes compared with open surgical repair. Most lesions are amenable to endovascular therapy, and CAS enabled treatment in patients judged not to be suitable surgical candidates. Duplex scanning surveillance after repeat CEA or CAS is recommended, because stenosis can recur after either secondary procedure.     

Carotid angioplasty and stent-induced bradycardia and hypotension: Impact of prophylactic atropine administration and prior carotid endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE: We compared the physiologic effect of selective atropine administration for bradycardia with routine prophylactic administration, before balloon inflation, during carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS). We also compared the incidence of procedural bradycardia and hypotension for CAS in patients with primary stenosis vs those with prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: A total of 86 patients were treated with CAS at 3 institutions. Complete periprocedural information was available for 75 of these patients. The median degree of stenosis was 90% (range, 60%-99%). Indications for CAS were severe comorbidities (n = 49), prior CEA (n = 21), and prior neck radiation (n = 5). Twenty patients with primary lesions were treated selectively with atropine only if symptomatic bradycardia occurred (nonprophylactic group). Thirty-four patients with primary lesions received routine prophylactic atropine administration before balloon inflation or stent deployment (prophylactic group). The 21 patients with prior CEA received selective atropine treatment only if symptomatic bradycardia occurred (prior CEA group) and were analyzed separately. Mean age and cardiac comorbidities did not vary significantly either between the prophylactic and nonprophylactic atropine groups or between the primary and prior CEA patient groups. Outcome measures included bradycardia (decrease in heart rate >50% or absolute heart rate <40 bpm), hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or mean blood pressure <50 mm Hg), requirement for vasopressors, and cardiac morbidity (myocardial infarction or congestive heart failure). RESULTS: The overall incidence of hypotension and bradycardia in patients treated with CAS was 25 (33%) of 75. A decreased incidence of intraoperative bradycardia (9% vs 50%; P < .001) and perioperative cardiac morbidity (0% vs 15%; P < .05) was observed in patients with primary stenosis who received prophylactic atropine as compared with patients who did not receive prophylactic atropine. CAS after prior CEA was associated with a significantly lower incidence of perioperative bradycardia (10% vs 33%; P < .05), hypotension (5% vs 32%; P < .05), and vasopressor requirement (5% vs 30%; P < .05), with a trend toward a lower incidence of cardiac morbidity (0% vs 6%; not significant) as compared with patients treated with CAS for primary carotid lesions. There were no significant predictive demographic factors for bradycardia and hypotension after CAS. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of prophylactic atropine before balloon inflation during CAS decreases the incidence of intraoperative bradycardia and cardiac morbidity in primary CAS patients. Periprocedural bradycardia, hypotension, and the need for vasopressors occur more frequently with primary CAS than with redo CAS procedures. On the basis of our data, we recommend that prophylactic atropine administration be considered in patients with primary carotid lesions undergoing CAS.     

Carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy for treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a randomized trial in a community hospital

OBJECTIVE: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is effective in reducing the risk of stroke in individuals with more than 60% carotid stenosis. Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been proffered as effective and used in treating individuals with asymptomatic carotid stenosis despite the absence of proven clinical equivalency. This randomized trial was designed to explore the hypothesis that CAS is equivalent to CEA for treating asymptomatic carotid stenosis. METHODS: A total of 85 individuals presenting with asymptomatic carotid stenosis of more than 80% were selected randomly for CAS or CEA and followed up for 48 months. RESULTS: Stenosis decreased to an average of 5% after CAS. The patency of the reconstructed artery remained satisfactory regardless of the technique, as determined by carotid ultrasonography. No major complications such as cerebral ischemia or death occurred. Procedural complications associated with CAS (n = 5) were hypotension and/or bradycardia; those concomitant with CEA (n = 3) were cervical nerve injury or complications related to general anesthesia (n = 4). Both procedures were well tolerated in the context of pain and discomfort. Hospital stay was similar in the two groups (mean, 1.1 versus 1.2 d). The occurrence of complications associated with CAS or CEA prolonged hospitalization by 3 days (mean, 4.0 versus 4.5 d). Return to full activity was achieved within 1 week by more than 85% of patients; all returned to their usual lifestyle by 2 weeks. Although hospital charges were slightly higher for CAS, costs were similar. CONCLUSION: CAS and CEA may be equally effective and safe in treating individuals with asymptomatic carotid stenosis.     

Comparison of angioplasty and stenting with cerebral protection versus endarterectomy for treatment of internal carotid artery stenosis in elderly patients

PURPOSE: Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is being evaluated as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treatment of severe carotid artery stenosis. Because CAS does not require general anesthesia and is less traumatic, it might be especially advantageous in older patients, but data comparing these 2 treatment methods in older patients are scarce. METHODS: The periprocedural complication rates in 53 patients aged 75 years or older who had undergone protected CAS between June 2001 and April 2004 were compared with those in a group of 110 patients aged 75 years or older who had undergone CEA between January 1997 and December 2001, before widespread introduction of CAS procedures at our institution. All patients were evaluated by a neurologist both before and after surgery. According to the criteria set forth by the large trials the occurrence of minor, major, or fatal stroke, and myocardial infarction within 30 days was determined. RESULTS: The demographic characteristics and indications for an intervention were similar in both treatment groups. Thirty patients (57%) in the CAS group had symptomatic carotid stenosis, compared with 69 patients (63%) in the CEA group. In neither group was there any fatal stroke or myocardial infarction. The 30-day stroke rate was significantly higher in the CAS group (4 minor, 2 major strokes; 11.3%) than in the CEA group (no minor, 2 major strokes; 1.8%; P < .05). Although the 30-day major stroke rate between CAS and CEA groups was comparable (3.8% vs 1.8%; P = 0.6), this effect was mainly attributable to a significantly higher rate of minor stroke in the CAS group (7.5% vs 0%; P < .05). CONCLUSION: Despite the use of cerebral protection devices the neurologic complication rate in patients aged 75 years and older associated with CAS was significantly higher than with CEA performed by highly skilled surgeons at our academic institution. Although this finding is mainly based on a significantly higher rate of minor stroke in the CAS group, the common practice of preferentially submitting older patients to CAS is questionable, and should be abandoned until the results of further randomized trials are available.     

Transcervical carotid stenting with flow reversal is safe in octogenarians: a preliminary safety study

BACKGROUND: The use of carotid stenting in octogenarian patients is controversial; some authors consider this population at high risk for the procedure. Anatomic vascular complexity may be an important reason for the high reported rates of periprocedural thromboembolic complications. Transcervical carotid angioplasty and stenting (TCS) with flow reversal avoids aortic arch instrumentation. In this study, we analyzed our experience with TCS in octogenarian patients and compared the results with those of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the same age group in terms of safety. METHODS: The study included 81 patients, > or =80 years, a retrospective cohort of 45 consecutive patients treated with CEA (January 2002 to January 2005), and a prospective cohort of 36 consecutive patients treated with TCS with protective flow reversal (January 2005 to January 2007). Patients were considered symptomatic according to the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) criteria. Stenting indication was established on the SAPPHIRE criteria. General anesthesia was used in patients undergoing CEA, and local anesthesia in those receiving TCS. Primary endpoints were: stroke, death, or acute myocardial infarction within 30 days. Secondary endpoints were peripheral nerve paralysis and cervical hematoma. Statistical significance for between-group differences was assessed by Pearson chi(2) or Fisher exact test, and Student t test. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. Follow-up was limited to 30 days. RESULTS: Baseline epidemiological characteristics and revascularization indications were similar between both groups. Mean age was significantly higher in the TCS group (83.5 +/- 3.35) than the CEA group (81.7 +/- 1.55) (P = .004). Percentage of symptomatic lesions was similar: 30.6% in TCS vs 44.4% in CEA (P = .2). Comorbid conditions (respiratory or cardiac) were more frequent in TCS group (61.6% vs 26.6%; P = .002). There were no significant differences between groups for the primary endpoints: 4.4% (one stroke, one acute myocardial infarction) for CEA vs 0% for TCS (P = .5). Among CEA patients, there were two peripheral nerve palsies (4.4%) and one cervical hematoma (2.2%); there were no such complications with TCS (P = .5 and P = 1, respectively). In one asymptomatic TCS patient, Doppler study at 24 hours following the procedure showed a common carotid artery dissection, which was treated by a common carotid to internal carotid bypass. CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary experience, transcervical carotid angioplasty and stenting with flow reversal for cerebral protection was as safe at short term as carotid endarterectomy in octogenarian patients, who additionally had considerable comorbidity; thus, it may be possible to extend the indications for carotid revascularization in this population. Studies in larger patient series are required to confirm the trends observed in this study.     

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.     

Staged bilateral carotid stenting, an effective strategy in high-risk patients - insights from a prospective multicenter trial

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate outcomes of high-risk patients undergoing bilateral carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: A total of 747 patients at increased risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) were enrolled in a prospective registry at 47 US sites of the Boston Scientific EPI: A Carotid Stenting Trial for Risk Surgical Patients (BEACH) trial. Among them, 78 (10.4%) patients underwent contralateral CAS > 30 days after the primary CAS procedure. Patients were followed at 1, 6, and 12 months, and annually thereafter for 3 years. The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of non Q-wave myocardial infarction within 24 hours, periprocedural (相似文献   

Current indications, results, and technique of carotid angioplasty/stenting

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the treatment of choice for most patients with high-grade carotid artery stenosis. Certain patient subsets, including those with severe cardiac and pulmonary disease and those with local/anatomic risk factors (including recurrent stenosis following CEA, cervical radiation therapy, prior radical neck dissection, and surgically inaccessible lesions) are at increased risk of stroke, cranial nerve injury and non-Q myocardial infarction following CEA, and may be better served by carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS). Procedural success is dependent upon proper patient selection and meticulous attention to detail. The use of cerebral embolic protection appears to reduce the risk of peri-procedural stroke following CAS.     

Carotid endarterectomy remains the standard of care, even in high-risk surgical patients

OBJECTIVE: This study tested the hypothesis that high-risk patients can undergo carotid endarterectomy without associated increased risk of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or death. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has clearly been shown to be effective in reducing the risk of stroke in selected symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with extracranial carotid stenosis. However, recently, carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS) has been suggested as an alternative treatment in high-risk surgical patients. METHODS: Medical records for consecutive patients who underwent CEA from 1996 to 2001 were reviewed for demographics, medical history, and hospital course. High-risk patients were defined as those experiencing a myocardial infarction (MI) or an exacerbation of congestive heart failure (CHF) within 4 weeks before CEA; unstable angina; steroid-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); prior ipsilateral CEA, neck dissection or irradiation; high carotid bifurcation; and those with combined cardiac-carotid procedures. Poor postoperative outcome was defined as stroke, TIA, or death within 30 days. Univariate, multivariate, and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used as appropriate. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-nine patients underwent 499 CEAs, of which 84 (17%) were considered high risk. The overall stroke-death rate among all patients was 2.8%. A total of 11 postoperative strokes (2.2%), 7 TIAs (1.4%), and 3 deaths (0.6%) occurred within 30 days after surgery. There was no difference in 30-day poor outcome between high- and low-risk patients (4.8% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.77). When these risk factors were assessed independently, those with recent MI were at higher risk for poor outcome (odds ratio [OR], 13.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2-82.0; P = 0.03). Multivariate analysis also revealed that a history of contralateral stroke or TIA conferred an increased risk of poor outcome (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1-8.4; P = 0.02), whereas use of preoperative angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors was associated with reduced risk (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.11-1.0; P = 0.05), as was a history of hyperlipidemia (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.87; P = 0.03). By log-rank analysis, 12-month survival was significantly worse in the high-risk group as compared with the low-risk (96% vs. 91%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Patients considered a surgical high risk can undergo CEA without any worse outcome compared with those patients deemed low risk. The benefit of CAS will likely be marginal, and only controlled clinical trials will be able to determine if certain subgroups demonstrate improved outcome with CAS. Carotid endarterectomy remains the standard of care, even in high-risk surgical patients.     

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.