AbuRahma A F, Jennings T G, Wulu J T, Tarakji L, Robinson P A
Department of Surgery, Charleston Area Medical Center, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West Virginia University, Charleston, WV, USA.
Stroke. 2001 Dec 1;32(12):2787-92. doi: 10.1161/hs1201.099649.
Several authorities have recently advocated carotid stenting for recurrent carotid stenosis because of the perception that redo surgery has a higher complication rate than primary carotid endarterectomy (CEA). This study compares the early and late results of reoperations versus primary CEA.
All reoperations for recurrent carotid stenosis performed during a recent 7-year period by a single vascular surgeon were compared with primary CEA. Because all redo CEAs were done with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or vein patch closure, we only analyzed those primary CEAs that used the same patch closures. A Kaplan-Meier life-table analysis was used to estimate stroke-free survival rates and freedom from >/=50% recurrent stenosis.
Of 547 primary CEAs, 265 had PTFE or saphenous vein patch closure, and 124 reoperations had PTFE or vein patch closure during the same period. Both groups had similar demographic characteristics. The indications for reoperation and primary CEA were symptomatic stenosis in 78% and 58% of cases and asymptomatic >/=80% stenosis in 22% and 42% of cases, respectively (P<0.001). The 30-day perioperative stroke and transient ischemic attack rates for reoperation and primary CEA were 4.8% versus 0.8% (P=0.015) and 4% versus 1.1%, respectively, with no perioperative deaths in either group. Cranial nerve injury was noted in 17% of reoperation patients versus 5.3% of primary CEA patients; however, most of these injuries were transient (P<0.001). Mean hospital stay was 1.8 days for reoperation versus 1.6 days for primary CEA. Cumulative rates of stroke-free survival and freedom from >/=50% recurrent stenosis for reoperation and primary CEA at 1, 3, and 5 years were 96%, 91%, and 82% and 98%, 96%, and 95% versus 94%, 92%, and 91% and 98%, 96%, and 96%, respectively (no significant differences).
Reoperation carries higher perioperative stroke and cranial nerve injury rates than primary CEA. However, reoperations are durable and have stroke-free survival rates that are similar to primary CEA. These considerations should be kept in mind when carotid stenting is recommended instead of reoperation.
最近,一些权威机构主张对复发性颈动脉狭窄进行颈动脉支架置入术,因为他们认为再次手术的并发症发生率高于初次颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)。本研究比较了再次手术与初次CEA的早期和晚期结果。
将一位血管外科医生在最近7年期间进行的所有复发性颈动脉狭窄再次手术与初次CEA进行比较。由于所有再次CEA均采用聚四氟乙烯(PTFE)或静脉补片闭合,我们仅分析那些采用相同补片闭合的初次CEA。采用Kaplan-Meier生存表分析来估计无卒中生存率和免于≥50%复发性狭窄的发生率。
在547例初次CEA中,265例采用PTFE或大隐静脉补片闭合,同期124例再次手术采用PTFE或静脉补片闭合。两组的人口统计学特征相似。再次手术和初次CEA的指征分别为78%和58%的病例为有症状狭窄,22%和42%的病例为无症状≥80%狭窄(P<0.001)。再次手术和初次CEA的围手术期30天卒中及短暂性脑缺血发作率分别为4.8%对0.8%(P=0.015)和4%对1.1%,两组均无围手术期死亡。再次手术患者中有17%发生颅神经损伤,而初次CEA患者中为5.3%;然而,这些损伤大多是短暂性的(P<0.001)。再次手术的平均住院时间为1.8天,初次CEA为1.6天。再次手术和初次CEA在1年、3年和5年时的无卒中生存率以及免于≥50%复发性狭窄的累积发生率分别为96%、91%和82%以及98%、96%和95%,与之相比,初次CEA分别为94%、92%和91%以及98%、96%和96%(无显著差异)。
再次手术的围手术期卒中及颅神经损伤发生率高于初次CEA。然而,再次手术效果持久,无卒中生存率与初次CEA相似。在建议采用颈动脉支架置入术而非再次手术时,应考虑这些因素。