Ballotta E, Renon L, Da Giau G, Toniato A, Baracchini C, Abbruzzese E, Saladini M, Moscardo P
Service of Vascular Surgery, University of Padua, School of Medicine, Padua, Italy.
Ann Surg. 2000 Jul;232(1):119-25. doi: 10.1097/00000658-200007000-00017.
To compare the clinical outcome and restenosis incidence of patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy with patch closure (CEAP) on one side and carotid eversion endarterectomy (CEE) on the other.
Although a few investigators have compared the results of CEAP versus CEE, no reports have compared the outcome of CEAP versus CEE in the same patient.
Eighty-six patients were randomly selected for sequential surgical treatment involving either CEAP/CEE or CEE/CEAP. All patients underwent postoperative duplex ultrasound study and clinical follow-up at 1, 6, and 12 months and every year thereafter. Various factors were analyzed to ascertain any association with restenosis, and Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the risk of restenosis.
Demographic and clinical data were similar in the CEAP and CEE groups. The selective shunting rate was statistically higher in the CEAP group. There were no perioperative deaths. Although the incidence of perioperative ipsilateral stroke was not significant, CEAP patients had a rate of combined transient ischemic attacks and strokes that approached statistical significance. The mean follow-up was 40 months. CEAP patients had a significantly higher incidence of restenosis and combined occlusive events and restenoses. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that CEE had a significantly better cumulative patency rate than CEAP and that freedom from restenoses at 24 and 36 months was 87% and 83% for CEAP and 98% and 98% for CEE, respectively.
CEE is less likely to cause perioperative neurologic complications and restenoses than CEAP. The significantly higher rate of unilateral recurrence suggests that local factors play a more important role than systemic factors in the occurrence of restenosis.
比较一侧接受颈动脉内膜切除术加补片修补术(CEAP)而另一侧接受颈动脉外翻内膜切除术(CEE)的患者的临床结局和再狭窄发生率。
尽管有少数研究者比较了CEAP与CEE的结果,但尚无报告比较同一患者中CEAP与CEE的结局。
随机选择86例患者进行序贯手术治疗,包括CEAP/CEE或CEE/CEAP。所有患者术后均接受双功超声检查,并在1、6和12个月以及此后每年进行临床随访。分析各种因素以确定与再狭窄的任何关联,并使用Kaplan-Meier分析来估计再狭窄的风险。
CEAP组和CEE组的人口统计学和临床数据相似。CEAP组的选择性分流率在统计学上更高。无围手术期死亡。尽管围手术期同侧卒中的发生率无统计学意义,但CEAP患者的短暂性脑缺血发作和卒中合并发生率接近统计学意义。平均随访40个月。CEAP患者的再狭窄以及合并闭塞事件和再狭窄的发生率明显更高。Kaplan-Meier分析显示,CEE的累积通畅率明显优于CEAP,CEAP在24个月和36个月时无再狭窄的发生率分别为87%和83%,而CEE分别为98%和98%。
与CEAP相比,CEE引起围手术期神经并发症和再狭窄的可能性较小。单侧复发率明显更高表明,局部因素在再狭窄的发生中比全身因素起更重要的作用。