颈动脉狭窄支架植入术的并发症及其处理

目的 颈动脉支架植入术(CAS)治疗颈动脉狭窄的并发症及其处理方法.方法回顾55例颈动脉狭窄患者CAS治疗后的并发症及处理方法,所有患者均随访3～6个月.结果发生保护伞装置不能回收1例,穿刺部位血肿5例(其中假性动脉瘤1例),血管痉挛1例,颈动脉窦反应12例,动脉内膜夹层形成1例,术后高血压1例,延迟性脑出血1例.结论积极术前准备、规范术中操作、术后正规治疗可有效预防和控制围手术期并发症.     

不同年龄颈动脉狭窄患者支架置入术围术期并发症的临床观察

目的探讨不同年龄颈动脉狭窄患者支架置入术(CAS)围术期30d内并发症。方法回顾性分析行CAS治疗的颈动脉狭窄患者137例,共行141处支架,按年龄分为3组:中年组(<60岁)44例,老年组(60~79岁)68例,高龄组(≥80岁)25例,观察3组间围术期30 d内并发症的发生情况。结果 3组术中心动过缓、短暂性低血压、脑梗死、高灌注综合征等并发症比较,无统计学差异(P>0.05)。高龄组术后持续性低血压发生率明显高于中年组和老年组(48.0%vs 11.4%,16.2%,P<0.05)。结论 CAS在各年龄段治疗颈动脉狭窄都是安全有效的;高龄患者术后持续性低血压的发生率明显增高,应早期积极治疗,以免出现相关严重并发症。     

颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者支架置人术围手术期并发症的防治探讨

目的探讨颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)治疗颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者围手术期并发症防治的初步经验。方法回顾性分析413例动脉粥样硬化性颈动脉狭窄患者经全脑血管数字减影血管造影术诊断后,均采用自膨式支架经股动脉入路行CAS治疗,术中及术后严密监控血压、心率、意识等生命体征,并采取综合措施防止并发症的发生。结果 413例患者中,CAS成功412例(99.8%)。CAS前狭窄率70%～95%,CAS后残余狭窄率为0～20%,患者脑缺血症状及体征均有明显改善。脑出血5例,治愈2例,死亡3例;CAS后3 d发生支架内血栓形成1例,经溶栓治疗后血管再通;支架内再狭窄2例,均行二次CAS治疗;消化道出血1例,对症治疗痊愈;股动脉穿刺处假性动脉瘤5例,经超声波引导定点压迫痊愈2例,瘤腔内注射凝血酶治愈3例;临时起搏器电极造成心室壁穿孔引起心包填塞1例,经紧急开胸手术修补治愈;低血压导致心内膜下心肌梗死2例,经适当升压症状缓解。结论 CAS微创安全有效,围手术期应采取综合措施预防CAS后并发症的发生,以确保疗效。     

新疆地区缺血性脑卒中患者颅外段脑血管支架治疗长期随访分析

目的评价新疆地区颅外段脑动脉狭窄患者颈动脉血管支架置入术(CAS)和椎动脉起始端支架置入术(VAOS)治疗的安全性和有效性。方法颅外段颈动脉狭窄或椎动脉起始部狭窄患者323例,回顾性分析其CAS和VAOS术前和术后随访记录,分析支架置入成功率、围术期并发症,及随访期间支架置入后再狭窄率和临床终点事件的发生率。结果 CAS和VAOS组手术成功率为100%,围手术期并发症发生率分别为14.4%和1.2%,随访期间临床终点事件的发生率分别为15.1%和12.8%,再狭窄的发生率为8.8%和13.4%,Cox回归分析发现在CAS组中,男性和多支血管病变为发生再狭窄的危险因素(HR=19.249,P=0.02;HR=0.069,P=0.034);VAOS组中,对侧椎动脉狭窄为发生再狭窄的危险因素(HR=0.075,P=0.001)。结论 CAS和VAOS治疗颅外段动脉狭窄相对安全,但应重视术中及术后并发症的预防及处理。     

脑保护装置下的血管成形和支架置入术治疗颈动脉狭窄

目的探讨颈动脉狭窄患者颈动脉血管成形和支架置入术(CAS)中应用脑保护装置的有效性和安全性。方法颈动脉狭窄患者CAS治疗时,12例应用脑保护装置(滤网型),16例未使用脑保护装置。结果28例颈动脉狭窄患者成功释放31枚自膨式支架。未使用脑保护装置组球囊预扩1次(6·2%),无一例后扩;使用脑保护装置组球囊预扩4次(33·3%),后扩6次(50%)。CAS治疗中,7例(25·0%)患者出现短暂性心率减慢和低血压。回收的脑保护装置中2例(16·7%)肉眼可见组织碎片。使用脑保护装置组在围手术期和随访期无神经并发症;未使用脑保护装置组围手术期发生1例(6·3%)脑梗死,随访期发生1例(6·3%)脑梗死。结论脑保护装置的使用有助于减少颈动脉狭窄患者CAS治疗的神经并发症。     

颈动脉支架置入术后3年随访结果分析

目的探讨颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)在预防脑梗死方面的远期效果。方法选择接受颅外段CAS患者55例,定期随访3年。根据CAS后发生缺血性脑血管事件(4例)和未发生缺血性脑血管事件(51例)进行比较。并分析CAS后血管再狭窄情况。结果在55例完成3年随访的CAS患者中,4例(7.3%)出现了终点事件的患者均为脑梗死。其中3例患者缺血事件对应的脑梗死在支架置入同侧,1例患者缺血事件对应的脑梗死在支架置入对侧。单因素分析发现,年龄>75岁、高血压史、有两个以上脑血管病危险因素、术后未系统服用抗血小板药物、术前有多次脑梗死病史的患者术后容易发生缺血性脑血管事件(P<0.05)。3年随访观察,有3例(5.5%)发生了再狭窄。结论 CAS能有效降低动脉粥样硬化性颈动脉狭窄患者脑卒中发生风险。CAS后中远期再狭窄率较低。     

冠状动脉病变小支架治疗的急性期和远期疗效

目的利用病例登记方法评价冠状动脉病变小支架治疗的急性期和远期疗效.方法对298例冠心病患者行经皮冠状动脉腔内成形术(PTCA)和支架术,依据置入支架直径将患者分为小支架组(59例,直径＜3mm)和大支架组(239例,直径≥3mm).观察手术成功率和并发症发生率,患者每3～4个月门诊随访1次,记录心肌梗塞、各种死亡原因.怀疑心肌缺血者再次行冠脉造影,如再狭窄＞70%则再次行靶血管血运重建术(TLR).结果小支架组和大支架组分别有61和274处病变,两组急性期成功率和并发症发生率均相似.10±5月随访中小支架组TLR患者明显多于大支架组,有显著性差异,P＜0.05.小支架组进一步分析发现,置入支架长度＞15mm患者随访期TLR发生率高于置入支架长度≤15mm患者,有显著性差异(P＜0.05).结论与大支架相比,小支架置入患者急性期成功率和并发症相似,但远期TLR明显增多.     

脑保护装置下的血管成形和支架置入术治疗颈动脉狭窄

目的：探讨颈动脉狭窄患者颈动脉血管成形和支架置入术（CAS）中应用脑保护装置的有效性和安全性。方法：颈动脉狭窄患者CAS治疗时，12例应用脑保护装置（滤网型），16例未使用脑保护装置。结果：28例颈动脉狭窄患者成功释放31枚自膨式支架。未使用脑保护装置组球囊预扩1次（6．2％），无一例后扩；使用脑保护装置组球囊预扩4次（33．3％），后扩6次（50％）。CAS治疗中，7例（25．0％）患者出现短暂性心率减慢和低血压。回收的脑保护装置中2例（16．7％）肉眼可见组织碎片。使用脑保护装置组在围手术期和随访期无神经并发症；未使用脑保护装置组围手术期发生1例（6．3％）脑梗死，随访期发生1例（6．3％）脑梗死。结论：脑保护装置的使用有助于减少颈动脉狭窄患者CAS治疗的神经并发症。     

不符合NASCET纳入标准的高危有症状颈动脉狭窄患者的颈动脉成形支架置入术治疗

目的 探讨支架置入术治疗不符合NASCET纳入标准的高危有症状颈动脉狭窄患者的有效性和安全性.方法 对20例不符合NASCET纳入标准的高危有症状颈动脉狭窄患者进行颈动脉支架置入术治疗,其中男性12例,女性8例,年龄62～76岁(平均69岁),短暂性脑缺血发作11例,脑梗死9例.所有患者数字减影血管造影显示颈动脉狭窄程度＞70%(NA-SCET标准),其中-侧颈动脉重度狭窄9例(2例为内膜切除术后再狭窄),双侧颈动脉重度狭窄6例,一侧颈动脉闭塞伴对侧重度狭窄5例(1例为鼻咽癌放疗术后).所有患者均使用栓子保护装置,均采用预扩张和自膨式支架.结果 手术成功率100%,残余狭窄率均＜30%.所有患者术中均出现不同程度的一过性心率和血压下降,1例患者并发微栓子栓塞.其余患者围手术期内无缺血性卒中发作.术后复查颈动脉超声见狭窄显著改善.术后1个月和3个月随访均未发现同侧缺血性卒中和冠状动脉缺血事件.结论 颈动脉支架置入术创伤小、围手术期并发症少,治疗外科手术高危的有症状颈动脉狭窄是安全和有效的.     

糖尿病合并颈动脉狭窄患者血管内支架置入术疗效评估

目的评估颈动脉支架(CAS)置入术在预防糖尿病(DM)合并颈动脉狭窄患者发生脑梗死及改善生活质量的远期效果。方法接受CAS置入治疗的DM合并颈动脉狭窄患者39例,定期随访1～6年。复查颈部血管彩超、头部MRI、头部CT及灌注成像,并对28例症状性颈动脉狭窄患者术前、术后第14天、3、6个月进行国立卫生研究院脑卒中评分(NIHSS)、Barthel指数(BI)、修订的Rankin量表(MRS)评分,并与影像学检查结果、发生缺血性脑血管事件进行比较。结果全部患者随访1～6年,平均33个月;3例(7.7%)脑梗死,其中2例脑梗死发生在支架置入同侧,另1例发生在对侧。28例症状性狭窄患者CAS治疗后14 d、3个月NIHSS、MRS评分均较术前显著降低(P<0.05),治疗后3、6个月BI评分均较术前显著增多(P<0.05)。单因素分析发现,年龄>75岁、高血压史、有两个以上脑血管病危险因素、术后未系统服用抗血小板药物、术前有多次脑梗死病史的患者术后易发生缺血性脑血管事件(P<0.05)。3例(7.7%)术后再狭窄。结论 DM合并颈动脉狭窄患者CAS治疗是安全的,能显著降低患者脑卒中发生风险及改善生活质量。CAS术后中远期再狭窄发生率较低。     

Feasibility and efficacy of balloon-based neuroprotection during carotid artery stenting in a single-center setting

We sought to prospectively assess the feasibility and in-hospital efficacy of the PercuSurge GuardWire temporary balloon-occlusive system for neuroprotection during carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS).Carotid angioplasty and stenting harbors a risk of distal embolization. Cerebral protection devices are currently under clinical investigation.Ninety-six consecutive patients with carotid bifurcation disease underwent a total of 102 CAS procedures with the intention to use the GuardWire for neuroprotection.GuardWire deployment was achieved in 99 procedures performed in 93 patients (97%). Device failure (n = 3) and severe neurologic responses to balloon occlusion of the targeted carotid artery (n = 2) accounted for five additional procedures that were essentially concluded without neuroprotection, for a total of 94 procedures completed as intended in 88 patients (92% procedural feasibility rate). Carotid angioplasty and stenting was performed successfully in 94 patients (100 procedures). There were no in-hospital deaths; but three patients (3.1%) sustained strokes, and two patients experienced transient ischemic attacks, for a total periprocedural complication rate of 5.2%. One major stroke occurred with the GuardWire in place, whereas two minor strokes were observed in patients in whom the device could not be deployed. Thus, successful neuroprotected CAS without major neurologic events was achieved in 87 patients (91%).The GuardWire temporary balloon-occlusive system is feasible as an adjunct to CAS in the majority of patients. It is associated with a 3.1% rate of major periprocedural neurologic complications. Adverse neurologic reactions to balloon occlusion may prohibit effective use of the system in about 2% of patients.     

颈动脉血管成形和支架置入术的并发症及其处理

颈动脉狭窄是导致脑梗死的重要原因之一。颈动脉血管成形和支架置入术(CAS)已被证实能够预防卒中发生,临床应用越来越广。尽管CAS是一种微创治疗方法,但仍然有许多潜在的并发症,如血流动力学异常、过度灌注综合征、脑梗死和再狭窄等。文章对CAS的并发症及其处理方法进行了综述。     

Safety and efficacy of carotid stenting in the very elderly

Background : Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients at high risk for complications from surgery. The very elderly (≥80‐year‐old) are one subgroup of patients identified as being at increased risk for carotid surgery. However, there is concern that the very elderly are also at increased risk for complications of CAS. A stroke and death rate of 12% was reported in very elderly patients during the roll‐in phase of Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial (CREST). We are reporting on a large clinical series of CAS with independent neurological assessment in the very elderly. Methods : Between 1994 and 2008, a consecutive series of 418 CAS patients (≥80‐year‐old) were treated at four high‐volume centers with extensive CAS experience. Independent neurologic assessment was performed after CAS procedures. Thirty‐day follow‐up information was available in 389 patients. Results : The average age was 83.2 ± 2.8 years. Most patients were male (63.2%), and the target lesion carotid stenosis was asymptomatic in two‐thirds (68.2%) of patients. The majority of patients treated with CAS had a history of coronary artery disease (74.4%), hypertension (87.8%), and dyslipidemia (71.1%). One third (30.1%) were diabetic and more than half (56.5%) were current or former smokers. Embolic protection devices (EPD) were used in 78.7% of cases with the CAS procedure being performed before EPD availability being the most common reason for not using them. The overall 30‐day incidence of stroke and death was 2.8% (11/389). The cumulative incidence of major cardiovascular events (stroke, death, or myocardial infarction) during that time period was 3.3% (13/389). Conclusions : This large series of CAS with independent neurologic assessment is convincing evidence that the very elderly (≥80 years) can safely undergo CAS with stroke and death rates comparable to younger patients. The key to obtaining these excellent results is that CAS be performed by high volume, experienced operators who exercise restraint regarding patient selection. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: randomized trial in a community hospital.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine whether carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is equivalent to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis >70% by a randomized, controlled trial in a community hospital. BACKGROUND: Carotid angioplasty and stenting has been suggested to be as effective as CEA for treatment of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: A total of 104 patients presenting with cerebrovascular ischemia ipsilateral to carotid stenosis were selected randomly for CEA or carotid stenting and followed for two years. 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 sequential ultrasound. One death occurred in the CEA group (1/51); one transient ischemic attack occurred in the CAS group (1/53); no individual sustained a stroke. The perception of procedurally related pain/discomfort was similar. Hospital stay was similar, although the CAS group tended to be discharged earlier (mean = 1.8 days vs. 2.7 days). Complications associated with CAS prolonged hospitalization when compared with those sustaining a CEA-related complication (mean = 5.6 days vs. 3.8 days). Return to full activity was achieved within one week by 80% of the CAS group and 67% of the patients receiving CEA. Hospital charges were slightly higher for CAS. CONCLUSIONS: Carotid stenting is equivalent to CEA in reducing carotid stenosis without increased risk for major complications of death/stroke. Because of shortened hospitalization and convalescence, CAS challenges CEA as the preferred treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis if a reduction in costs can be achieved.     

Outcomes following extracranial carotid artery stenting in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery angioplasty and stenting has become a viable alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA), especially for patients considered at high risk for post-operative complications. This study investigated the feasibility, safety and long-term outcome of carotid artery stenting (CAS) in high-risk patients. METHODS: From July 1995 to November 2000, sixty-two consecutive patients considered to be at high risk for post-operative complications of CEA were followed prospectively after undergoing extracranial CAS procedures. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients [37 men (60%) and 25 women (40%)] underwent a total of 69 CAS procedures. The mean age was 67 +/- 9 years (range, 32-89 years). Comorbid conditions included hypertension in 95% and severe coronary artery disease in 58%. Sixteen patients (26%) had a previous ipsilateral CEA, twenty-one percent had a history of neck radiation and 32% had a history of significant contralateral carotid artery disease. Fifty-two patients (84%) were symptomatic. All 69 CAS procedures were technically successful. The major post-operative complications were two minor strokes (2.8%), one major stroke (1.4%) and one fatal major stroke (1.4%). The mean length of follow-up was 17 months (range, 4 months to 5.6 years). Two patients (2.8%) have suffered ipsilateral neurologic events following CAS. Long-term follow-up revealed restenosis at 6 months in 4 patients (5.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Carotid artery angioplasty and stenting is safe and feasible. This procedure produces satisfactory outcomes in patients who are at high risk for post-operative complications of CEA.     

A "mouse in a trap" method for cerebral protection during carotid stenting: Technical note.

Carotid artery angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is now used as an alternative to surgical endarterectomy. The introduction of cerebral protection systems during stenting has improved carotid artery stenosis treatment, with less periprocedural complications. A "mouse in a trap" method was conceived and used in three patients. This involved an emboli entrapment-aspiration system using one proximal occluder in the common carotid artery and two distal occluders in the internal carotid artery or external carotid artery, followed by serial inflation-deflation cycles during each carotid stenting procedure. Debris was retrieved before dilation in one patient, after deployment in one, and after dilation in two. Although only used in a few cases to date, the method may improve the practice of CAS in treating patients with carotid stenosis, resulting in less thromboembolic events.     

脑静脉窦血栓或静脉窦狭窄患者血管腔内操作相关并发症分析

目的 分析脑静脉窦血栓及静脉窦狭窄血管腔内操作相关并发症.方法 回顾性连续纳入2000年1月至2021年6月解放军总医院第一医学中心神经内科明确诊断的脑静脉窦血栓或静脉窦狭窄且接受脑静脉系统血管腔内操作的患者456例,腰椎穿刺示脑脊液压力≥250 mmH2 O,全脑DSA检查证实存在静脉窦狭窄(狭窄两端压力差≥10 m...     

经皮颈动脉支架置入术的临床应用及效果

目的评价经皮颈动脉支架置入术对预防缺血性脑卒中的临床效果。方法对30例患者(共32个严重颈动脉狭窄病变)行经皮颈动脉支架置入术,包括男性26例,女性4例,年龄>56岁,其中13例曾患有脑卒中或反复一过性脑缺血;部分患者有高血压、糖尿病及心肌梗死病史。均在术前行颈动脉超声检查及颈动脉及其颅内段血管造影,将支架置入并覆盖颈动脉病变,部分采用远端脑保护装置;在术后均做心脑血管专科及颈动脉超声检查随访。结果选择性颈动脉造影示32个靶病变均有>70%的狭窄,共置入自膨式支架32个,球囊扩张式支架1个,支架置入成功率为97%;使用远端滤网保护装置21例,使用成功率为95%,在回收的滤网中均发现脱落碎片;4例患者在颈动脉支架置入术后顺利完成外科冠状动脉搭桥术;2例患者在术中分别出现靶病变对侧颅内出血和术后急性肺水肿,3d后死亡。在临床随访观察期间,患者均无脑卒中发生,颈动脉超声检查未发现支架置入段再狭窄。结论经皮颈动脉支架置入术是预防缺血性脑卒中的安全有效方法,也是综合治疗缺血性心脑疾病的新方法。远端保护装置的应用是防止术中脑卒中并发症的必要措施。     

MO.MA -- a new cerebral stroke protection system during carotid artery stenting

BACKGROUND: Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been introduced as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of carotid atherosclerosis. Due to the risk of embolisation during CAS, the usage of cerebral protection devices is obligatory. AIM: To assess the safety and efficacy of the novel cerebral protection device -- the MO.MA system. METHODS: Twenty one patients selected for carotid stenting were included into the study. We estimated the deliverability of the device to the target site, procedural success rate and the incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: All performed procedures were successful without major cerebro-vascular complications during both 30-day and 6-month follow-up periods. CONCLUSIONS: The MO.MA system is safe and effective in preventing stroke during CAS.