Findlay J Max, Marchak B Elaine, Pelz David M, Feasby Thomas E
Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Can J Neurol Sci. 2004 Feb;31(1):22-36. doi: 10.1017/s0317167100002808.
Since the validation of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) as an effective means of stroke prevention, there has been renewed interest in its best indications and methods, as well as in how it compares to carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS). This review examines these topics, as well as the investigation of carotid stenosis and the role of auditing and reporting CEA results.
Brain imaging with CT or MRI should be obtained in patients considered for CEA, in order to document infarction and rule out mass lesions. Carotid investigation begins with ultrasound and, if results agree with subsequent, good-quality MRA or CT angiography, treatment can be planned and catheter angiography avoided. An equally acceptable approach is to proceed directly from ultrasound to catheter angiography, which is still the gold-standard in carotid artery assessment.
Appropriate patients for CEA are those symptomatic with transient ischemic attacks or nondisabling stroke due to 70-99% carotid stenosis; the maximum allowable stroke and death rate being 6%. Uncertain candidates for CEA are those with 50-69% symptomatic stenosis, and those with asymptomatic stenosis > or = 60% but, if selected carefully on the basis of additional risk factors (related to both the carotid plaque and certain patient characteristics), some will benefit from surgery. Asymptomatic patients will only benefit if surgery can be provided with exceptionally low major complication rates (3% or less). Inappropriate patients are those with less than 50% symptomatic or 60% asymptomatic stenosis, and those with unstable medical or neurological conditions.
Carotid endarterectomy can be performed with either regional or general anaesthesia and, for the latter, there are a number of monitoring techniques available to assess cerebral perfusion during carotid cross-clamping. While monitoring cannot be considered mandatory and no single monitoring technique has emerged as being clearly superior, EEG is most commonly used. "Eversion" endarterectomy is a variation in surgical technique, and there is some evidence that more widely practiced patch closure may reduce the acute risk of operative stroke and the longer-term risk of recurrent stenosis. CAROTID ANGIOPLASTY AND STENTING: Experience with this endovascular and less invasive procedure grows, and its technology continues to evolve. Some experienced therapists have reported excellent results in case series and a number of randomized trials are now underway comparing CAS to CEA. However, at this time it is premature to incorporate CAS into routine practice replacing CEA. AUDITING: It has been shown that auditing of CEA indications and results with regular feed-back to the operating surgeons can significantly improve the performance of this operation. Carotid endarterectomy auditing is recommended on both local and regional levels.
自从颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)被确认为预防中风的有效手段以来,人们对其最佳适应症、方法以及与颈动脉血管成形术和支架置入术(CAS)的比较再次产生了兴趣。本综述探讨了这些主题,以及颈动脉狭窄的研究以及CEA结果的审计和报告的作用。
对于考虑接受CEA的患者,应进行CT或MRI脑成像,以记录梗死情况并排除占位性病变。颈动脉检查从超声开始,如果结果与随后高质量的MRA或CT血管造影结果一致,则可以制定治疗方案并避免进行导管血管造影。另一种同样可接受的方法是直接从超声检查进行导管血管造影,导管血管造影仍是颈动脉评估的金标准。
适合CEA的患者是那些因70%-99%的颈动脉狭窄而出现短暂性脑缺血发作或非致残性中风症状的患者;最大允许的中风和死亡率为6%。CEA的不确定候选者是那些有50%-69%症状性狭窄的患者,以及那些无症状狭窄≥60%的患者,但是,如果根据其他风险因素(与颈动脉斑块和某些患者特征有关)仔细选择,一些患者将从手术中受益。无症状患者只有在手术的主要并发症发生率极低(3%或更低)时才会受益。不适合手术的患者是那些症状性狭窄小于50%或无症状狭窄小于60%的患者,以及那些内科或神经状况不稳定的患者。
颈动脉内膜切除术可以在区域麻醉或全身麻醉下进行,对于全身麻醉,有多种监测技术可用于评估颈动脉夹闭期间的脑灌注。虽然监测并非强制要求,而且没有一种监测技术被证明明显更优越,但脑电图是最常用的。“外翻”内膜切除术是手术技术的一种变体,有证据表明更广泛应用的补片闭合术可能会降低手术中风的急性风险和再狭窄的长期风险。
这种血管内且侵入性较小的手术的经验不断增加,其技术也在不断发展。一些经验丰富的治疗师在病例系列中报告了出色的结果,目前正在进行一些随机试验,比较CAS和CEA。然而,目前将CAS纳入常规实践以取代CEA还为时过早)。
研究表明,对CEA适应症和结果进行审计并定期向手术医生反馈,可以显著提高该手术的效果。建议在地方和区域层面进行颈动脉内膜切除术审计。