首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 997 毫秒
1.
Patients with severe carotid and coronary disease—especially if they require coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)—are at high risk of cardiac events and stroke. Carotid revascularization should be considered for patients with symptomatic carotid disease and bilateral severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis. In patients with unilateral asymptomatic carotid stenosis, decision to proceed to revascularization should be based more on a perspective of long-term stroke prevention than of perioperative stroke reduction. Compared with endarterectomy, carotid artery stenting is associated with a lower incidence of periprocedural myocardial infarction, an event linked to long-term mortality. This observation may be particularly relevant for patients with advanced coronary artery disease such as those undergoing CABG. Irrespective of the carotid revascularization strategy, a broad disease management approach based on lifestyle modification and pharmacologic cardiovascular prevention is more likely to affect both the quality and duration of life than revascularization itself.  相似文献   

2.
Knur R 《Heart and vessels》2011,26(2):125-130
Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an efficient alternative procedure for the treatment of high-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The use of cerebral protection systems might decrease procedural risk of stroke and death. We report our initial experience with protected carotid stenting in high-risk patients with severe carotid artery disease. From January 2006 until July 2008 we routinely performed CAS using a distal filter protection device in 65 consecutive high-surgical-risk patients with 72 high-grade carotid stenoses. Technical success rate was 97.2%. Neurologic periprocedural complications included two transient ischemic attacks and one major stroke. Three filter-related complications were managed without negative results to the patients. The overall in-hospital and 30-days MACE rate was 1.5%, 3.6% in symptomatic patients and 0% in asymptomatic patients. In our series of high-risk patients, CAS with the use of a distal filter protection system was safe and effective with a low incidence of periprocedural complications.  相似文献   

3.
Stenosis of the extracranial carotid artery is a treatable cause of ischemic stroke and can reliably be detected and graded by vascular ultrasound. The differentiation between symptomatic and asymptomatic stenosis, the perioperative risk and the estimated life expectancy of the patient guide the therapy. Therapy is based on an optimal treatment of cardiovascular risk factors and antiplatelet drugs. Revascularization using surgical carotid endarterectomy is efficient for the prevention of stroke in patients with a high grade symptomatic stenosis. Endovascular therapy using stent-protected angioplasty of the carotid artery is an alternative in patients with a higher surgical risk with low complication rates when performed in experienced centres. Patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis are primarily treated conservatively and revascularization is indicated in patients with a low surgical and global cardiovascular risk.  相似文献   

4.
Atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis is a major cause of disabling stroke or death. Although carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is currently considered to be the standard of care for patients with a severe symptomatic stenosis and selected patients with an asymptomatic carotid stenosis, carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is increasingly being used as an alternative treatment modality. This article briefly summarizes the current trial data on CEA and CAS. More importantly, potential risk factors for CEA and CAS are reviewed and the complementary role of these techniques in the management of the individual patient is discussed.  相似文献   

5.
《Cor et vasa》2018,60(1):e42-e48
It is commonly accepted that a relationship exists between coronary and carotid arterial disease, given that the prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with carotid stenosis is as high as 77%, depending on the population studied. Elevated cardiovascular (CV) risks are apparent in patients with either asymptomatic or symptomatic carotid stenosis. Patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis are at about a three-fold higher risk of CV death/myocardial infarction compared with a matched population without carotid stenosis, and this risk may be even higher among patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. Thus, antiplatelet and lipid-lowering therapies are indicated not only to prevent stroke, but also especially to lower elevated CV risks. Carotid revascularization has become well established in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis, which is associated with significant absolute risk reductions in terms of recurrent stroke, but remains controversial for patients with significant but asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Carotid revascularization in those with asymptomatic carotid stenosis seems to principally benefit patients with specific clinical/imaging features indicating a high risk of stroke. Screening and treatment of asymptomatic CAD can be beneficial for patients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis and especially for those for whom surgical or endovascular carotid revascularization is planned. Because evidence of the benefits afforded by prophylactic revascularization of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in all CABG candidates (in terms of reducing perioperative stroke) is lacking, it may be reasonable to restrict prophylactic carotid revascularization to patients at the highest risk of postoperative stroke, thus those with severe bilateral lesions or a history of prior stroke/transient ischemic event.  相似文献   

6.
颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)和颈动脉内膜切除术(QEA)是目前颈动脉狭窄患者最主要的非药物治疗方法。评价颈动脉狭窄患者的脑功能储备,不仅能筛选出近期可能面临卒中的高危患者,而且还能对无症状颈动脉狭窄患者行CEA和CAS的纳入标准进行修正,从而为患者提供最佳的治疗方案。文章对颈动脉狭窄患者的脑功能储备评价和MRI在其中的应用做了综述。  相似文献   

7.
BACKGROUND: The use of carotid artery stenting with embolic protection has been practiced for over a decade in the United States, and increasingly so since carotid stenting received FDA approval in 2004. While there have been attempts at establishing predictors of outcomes in carotid artery stenting, they have generally been limited to single center experiences and/or multicenter retrospective surveys. This report examines predictors of outcomes in carotid stenting in the earliest and largest prospective multicenter neurologist-adjudicated experience in the United States post device approval. METHODS: The Carotid Acculink/Accunet Post-Approval Trial to Uncover Unanticipated or Rare Events (CAPTURE) is a prospective, multi-center registry conducted to assess outcomes of carotid artery stenting (CAS) in the noninvestigational setting following device approval for high surgical risk patients (symptomatic with > or =50% stenosis; asymptomatic > or =80% stenosis). A neurologist examined the patients before the procedure, at 24 hr and 30-days post-procedure. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, any stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30-days post-procedure. Strokes and neurological events suspected to be strokes were adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Adjudication Committee (CEAC) using prespecified definitions. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine clinical, procedural, and anatomic predictors of endpoint outcomes. RESULTS: Three thousand five hundred patients were enrolled at 144 sites by 353 physicians of varying specialty backgrounds and CAS experience. The 30-day primary endpoint event rate of death, stroke and MI was 6.3% [95% CI: 5.5-7.1%], and the rate of major stroke and death 2.9% [95% CI: 2.4-3.5]. Predictors of adverse outcomes included age, symptomatic patients, predilation prior to embolic protection device placement, time from symptoms to CAS procedure, and the use of multiple stents. CONCLUSIONS: In general, carotid stenting is performed safely in patients with severe stenosis at high surgical risk, with best outcomes in younger asymptomatic patients. However, there are certain patient and procedural characteristics that are associated with poorer outcomes. In these patients, the risk of stenting should be considered vis-à-vis both the anticipated benefit as well as the alternative surgical and medical options.  相似文献   

8.
PURPOSE: To report a propensity score-adjusted analysis of the long-term risks for stroke after carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared to medical therapy in patients with asymptomatic high-grade carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: A total of 946 consecutive patients (605 men; median age 73 years) with asymptomatic high-grade carotid artery stenoses (> or =70%) identified in a single center registry were treated either medically (n=525) or with CAS (n=421). A propensity score-adjusted analysis was performed to test the hypothesis that long-term neurological outcome might be better after CAS than after medical treatment, depending on the baseline degree of carotid stenosis and the patient's medical status. Baseline degree of stenosis was classified as 70% to 79% (n=307), 80% to 89% (n=366), and 90% to 99% (n=272) by duplex ultrasound. Surgical risk was estimated by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (I to IV). RESULTS: Stroke-free survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 97%, 93%, and 89% after conservative treatment versus 94%, 93%, and 91% after CAS (p=0.56), respectively. Compared to conservatively treated patients with 70% to 79% stenoses, the adjusted hazard ratios for stroke were 2.36 (p=0.044) for conservatively treated patients with 80% to 89% and 3.17 (p=0.026) for those with 90% to 99% stenoses. For CAS patients with 70% to 79%, 80% to 89%, and 90% to 99% stenoses, the adjusted hazard ratios for stroke were 1.32 (p=0.63), 0.91 (p=0.84), and 0.98 (p=0.98) irrespective of the ASA score, the propensity to undergo CAS, and other potential confounders. Thus, the risk of stroke increased in parallel with the degree of stenosis in conservatively treated patients, but remained unchanged in patients undergoing CAS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with asymptomatic severe carotid narrowing (> or =80%) might benefit from CAS with respect to stroke-free survival. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.  相似文献   

9.
Intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH) and ulcers are the major findings of unstable plaques. In addition, initial symptoms are associated with postprocedural complications after carotid artery stenting (CAS). The aim of this study was to determine the safety of CAS using an embolic protection device in symptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis and unstable plaques such as IPH and ulcers.This retrospective study included 140 consecutive patients with severe carotid stenosis. These patients underwent preprocedural carotid vessel wall imaging to evaluate the plaque status. We analyzed the incidence of initial clinical symptoms, such as headache, nausea, and vomiting, after CAS. The primary outcomes analyzed were the incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction, and death within 30 days of CAS.Sixty-seven patients (47.9%) had IPH, and 53 (38.9%) had ulcers on carotid wall imaging/angiography. Sixty-three patients (45.0%) had acute neurological symptoms with positive diffusion-weighted image findings. Intraluminal thrombi on initial angiography and flow arrest during CAS were significantly higher in patients with IPH and symptomatic patients. Symptoms were significantly higher in patients with IPH than in those without (63.5% vs 35.1%, P < .001). There were no significant differences in clinical symptoms after stenting or in primary outcomes, regardless of IPH, ulcer, or initial symptoms.IPH and plaque ulceration are risk factors in symptomatic carotid stenosis. However, IPH and plaque ulceration were not a significant risk factors for cerebral embolism during protected carotid artery stent placement in patients with carotid stenosis. Protected CAS might be feasible and safe despite the presence of unstable plaques.  相似文献   

10.
Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has achieved clinical equipoise with carotid endarterectomy (CEA), as evidenced by 2 large U.S. randomized clinical trials, multiple pivotal registry trials, and 2 multispecialty guideline documents endorsed by 14 professional societies. The largest randomized trial conducted in patients at average surgical risk of CEA, CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial) found no difference between CAS and CEA for the combined endpoint of stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) after 4 years of follow-up. The largest randomized trial comparing CAS and CEA in patients at increased surgical risk, SAPPHIRE (Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy), looked at 1-year stroke, death, and MI incidence and found no difference in symptomatic patients, but a significantly better outcome in asymptomatic patients for CAS (9.9% vs. 21.5%; p = 0.02). Given that >70% of carotid revascularization procedures are performed in asymptomatic patients for primary prevention of stroke, it is incumbent upon clinicians to demonstrate that revascularization has an incremental benefit over highly effective modern medical therapy alone.  相似文献   

11.
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.  相似文献   

12.
Stroke is a major cause of mortality, morbidity, and disability. Carotid artery disease is the etiology for 15% to 20% of stroke. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) reduces the risk of ipsilateral stroke and death in symptomatic patients with 50% to 99% carotid artery stenosis when the operative risk of stroke or death is less than 6%. Treatment benefit is greater with earlier surgery, more severe stenoses, and older age. Recently, carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a treatment option, especially in patients with high surgical risk due to anatomic or clinical variables. Nondisabling stroke risk may be higher with CAS than CEA, but the difference is narrowed with the use of embolic protection devices. The risk for myocardial infarction is lower with CAS than CEA. There is no difference in risk for disabling stroke or death. Worse results with new or low-volume CAS operators is a concern. CEA and CAS are complementary revascularization strategies. CEA may be preferred in older patients with complex anatomy or bulky plaques. CAS may be preferred in younger patients and those with restenosis, history of neck radiation, surgical contraindications, or surgically inaccessible lesions. The role for optimal medical therapy as an alternative treatment strategy remains to be defined. Nevertheless, all patients should be treated with lifestyle interventions and secondary risk factor control to target levels to reduce the risk of subsequent atherosclerotic events.  相似文献   

13.

Summary

This study represents a prospective audit comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy (CEA), performed by a single surgical team. Between January 2005 and December 2008, 440 patients were referred; 177 had CAS and 263 CEA. Selection of procedure was individualised and contra-indications for CAS included internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis > 85–90%, intraluminal thrombus, ICA tortuosity, gross surface ulceration of plaque and excessive calcification. Type III aortic arch and arch calcification also precluded CAS.Standard techniques were used for both procedures with a protection device routinely used for CAS. Most CEAs were performed under general anaesthesia, with selective intraluminal shunting. One hundred and eighty-six patients were selected for CAS; nine (48%) were converted to CEA for technical reasons.The operative risk profile was similar, but significantly more in the CAS group were hypertensive. Almost half (49%) in the CAS group were asymptomatic vs 26% in the CEA group. All asymptomatics had 70+% stenosis on Duplex Doppler.Results were reported within one month of the procedure. The stroke rate was 2.3% for CAS vs 1.9% for CEA (p > 0.05). Stroke and death plus one M1 was 4.5% after CAS vs 3.4% after CEA (p > 0.05). Disabling stroke occurred in 1.1% of CAS patients vs 0.4% of CEA patients. These results are satisfactory and compare favourably with other similar series.  相似文献   

14.
Background : Each of the embolic protection devices used in carotid artery stenting (CAS) has advantages and disadvantages. The prospective, multicenter, single‐arm EMPiRE Clinical Study investigated a proximally placed device (GORE Flow Reversal System) that provides distal neuroprotection during CAS by reversing blood flow in the internal carotid artery, thereby directing emboli away from the brain. Methods : The study evaluated 30‐day outcomes in 245 pivotal high‐surgical‐risk patients (mean age, 70 years; 32% symptomatic; 16% ≥80‐years old) with carotid stenosis who underwent CAS using the flow reversal system. The primary endpoint was a major adverse event (MAE; stroke, death, myocardial infarction, or transient ischemic attack) within 30 days of CAS. The MAE rate was compared with an objective performance criterion (OPC) derived from CAS studies that included embolic protection. Results : The MAE rate was 4.5% (11 patients; P = 0.002 compared with the OPC). The stroke and death rate was 2.9%. No patient had a major ischemic stroke. Six patients (2.4%) had intolerance to flow reversal. The death and stroke rates in the symptomatic, asymptomatic, and octogenarian subgroups were 2.6, 3, and 2.6%, respectively, meeting American Heart Association guidelines for carotid endarterectomy. Conclusion : The stroke and death rate in this study was among the lowest in CAS trials. The results indicate that the flow reversal system is safe and effective when used for neuroprotection during CAS and that it provides benefits in a broad patient population. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.  相似文献   

15.
Karotisstenose     
Carotid stenosis amenable to surgical or interventional revascularization accounts for 5–12% of all new strokes. Duplex sonography, due to its high sensitivity and specificity is the first and most important step in establishing the diagnosis. Several randomised trials have proven the superiority of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) over medical treatment of symptomatic and also asymptomatic stenoses. For a growing number of patients carotid artery stenting (CAS) can be an alternative. The safety of CAS has improved in recent years due to technical developments, especially cerebral protection systems. According to large registries and also randomised trials the complication rate is comparable to CEA, at least for high surgical risk patients. Results of further randomised trials remain awaited before CAS will also be recommended for low risk patients and patients with asymptomatic stenoses.  相似文献   

16.
Opinion statement Internal carotid artery stenosis is an important cause of ischemic stroke. Treatment decisions frequently center on whether the patient is symptomatic or asymptomatic. For recently symptomatic patients with severe stenosis (70% to 99%) and low to medium surgical risk, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is extremely useful for stroke prevention. CEA is moderately useful for patients with 50% to 69% symptomatic stenosis and is not indicated for patients with symptomatic stenosis of less than 50%. CEA may be useful for select patients with severe asymptomatic stenosis (80% to 99%) but only if the surgical complication is kept below the 3% level. Carotid stenting is an emerging option for the future but is still experimental. In addition to carotid intervention, patients with carotid stenosis should receive aggressive risk factor management, including treatment with antiplatelet agents and statins.  相似文献   

17.
The best approach to the management of concomitant severe carotid and coronary artery disease remains unanswered. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines recommend carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in asymptomatic carotid stenosis of ≥ 80% either prior to or combined with coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). Currently, there is no consensus as to which surgical approach is superior. More recently, carotid artery stenting (CAS) prior to CABG is emerging as an alternative option with promising results in asymptomatic patients considered 'high risk' for CEA. A <3% composite event rate has been set as a benchmark for isolated CAS or CEA in asymptomatic patients by the ACC/AHA; however, most CEA or CAS studies in patients requiring concomitant CABG have shown event rates ranging from 10-12%. This review examines the available data on carotid revascularisation in relation to CABG surgery to aid in the risk-benefit decision analysis in this controversial area.  相似文献   

18.
Stroke is a global epidemic with a significant economic burden to patients, families, and societies at large. In the industrialized world, stroke is the third most common cause of death, the second most common cause of dementia, and the most common reason for acquired disability in adulthood. Overall, 20%-30% of ischemic strokes are related to extracranial carotid artery stenosis. Revascularization with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the gold-standard treatment for patients with significant carotid stenosis. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has become an accepted alternative to CEA over the past decade for patients at high surgical risk, and has progressively evolved into an elegant procedure over the past 3 decades, with dedicated equipment including proximal embolic occlusion devices that have minimized procedural strokes. High–surgical-risk CAS registries have established this procedure as an alternative to CEA for high-risk patients. The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stent Trial (CREST) has shown similar outcomes with CAS and CEA for patients at standard risk, although CAS is associated with higher minor stroke events and CEA is associated with higher myocardial infarction (MI) events. However, CAS is technically challenging and requires a meticulous approach, with a protracted learning curve that should involve experience with > 70 cases. Careful patient selection is instrumental in avoiding procedural complications, and the procedure should be avoided in patients with prohibitive anatomy. This article reviews the use of CAS for extracranial carotid artery stenosis, considering technical aspects, registry and clinical trial outcomes data, determinants of success, and contemporary guidelines.  相似文献   

19.
In a single-center cohort of 174 consecutive patients, we sought to evaluate whether the use of emboli protection devices (EPDs) results in equivalent rates of adverse events in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients after carotid artery stenting (CAS) with EPDs. Death or stroke occurred in 3.3% in the symptomatic group and in 3.5% of the asymptomatic group at 30 days (p = NS). At 6 months, there was also no significant difference in the rate of stroke or death between the groups. Unlike surgical revascularization, symptomatic patients did not have a greater risk for stroke and death compared with asymptomatic patients after CAS with EPDs.  相似文献   

20.
A carotid stenosis is responsible for about 30% of strokes occurring. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is considered to be the gold standard treatment of a carotid stenosis. Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is emerging as a new alternative treatment for a carotid artery stenosis, but the risk of neurological complications and brain embolism remain the major drawback to this procedure. So as to reduce the risk, we need: good indications, good patient and lesion selection; correct techniques; brain protection devices (cerebral protection devices should be routinely used and are mandatory for any procedure. Three types of protection devices are available: filters are the most commonly used. Nevertheless, all protection devices have limitations and cannot prevent from embolic events. However neurological complications can be reduced by 60%. New protection devices will be discussed); good choice of the stent and correct implantation (all stents are not equivalent and have different geometrical effects); pharmacological adjuncts; good team. Indications are well accepted for high-risk patients and recent studies have shown that CAS has superior short-term outcomes than CEA in this group of patients. Indications for low-risk and asymptomatic patients are controversial. New selection criteria have to be discussed. But there are enough reported data to conclude that CAS is also not inferior to CEA in low-risk and asymptomatic patients. In our series of 844 procedures, without protection (n = 187) 30-day death and stroke rate was 3.7% and with protection (n = 657) 1% (1.3% for symptomatic patients, 0.9% for asymptomatic patients, 1.4% in high-risk patients, 0.4% in low-risk patients). CAS under protection is the standard of care and is maybe becoming the gold standard treatment of a carotid stenosis at least in some subgroups of patients.  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号