Mozes Geza, Sullivan Timothy M, Torres-Russotto Diego R, Bower Thomas C, Hoskin Tanya L, Sampaio Sergio M, Gloviczki Peter, Panneton Jean M, Noel Audra A, Cherry Kenneth J
Division of Vascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn, USA.
J Vasc Surg. 2004 May;39(5):958-65; discussion 965-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2003.12.037.
Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been proposed as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients excluded from the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial and the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study and in those considered at high risk for CEA. In light of recently released CAS data in patients at high risk, we reviewed our experience with CEA.
The records for consecutive patients who underwent CEA between 1998 and 2002 were retrospectively reviewed, and risk was stratified according to inclusion and exclusion criteria from a "high-risk" or CAS-CEA trial, The Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy (SAPPHIRE) trial.
Of 776 CEAs performed, 323 (42%) were considered high risk, on the basis of criteria including positive stress test (n = 109, 14%), age older than 80 years (n = 85, 11%), contralateral carotid occlusion (n = 66, 9%), pulmonary dysfunction (n = 56, 7%), high cervical lesion (n = 36, 5%), and repeat carotid operation (n = 27, 3%). Other high-risk criteria included recent myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac surgery, or class III or IV cardiac status; left ventricular ejection fraction less than 30%; contralateral laryngeal palsy; and previous neck irradiation (each <1.5%). Clinical presentation was similar in the high-risk and low-risk groups: asymptomatic (73% versus 73%), transient ischemic attack (23% vs 22%), and previous stroke (4% vs 5%). The overall postoperative stroke rate was 1.4% (symptomatic, 2.9%; asymptomatic, 0.9%). Comparison of high-risk and low-risk CEAs demonstrated no statistical difference in the stroke rate. Factors associated with significantly increased stroke risk included cervical radiation therapy, class III or IV angina, symptomatic presentation, and age 60 years or younger. Overall mortality was 0.3% (symptomatic, 0.5%; asymptomatic, 0.2%), not significantly different between the high-risk (0.6%) and low-risk groups (0.0%). Non-Q-wave MI was more frequent in the high-risk group (3.1 vs 0.9%; P <.05). A composite cluster of adverse clinical events (death, stroke, MI) was more frequent in the symptomatic high-risk group (9.3% vs 1.6%; P <.005), but not in the asymptomatic cohort. There was a trend for more major cranial nerve injuries in patients with local risk factors, such as high carotid bifurcation, repeat operation, and cervical radiation therapy (4.6% vs 1.7%; P <.13). In 121 patients excluded on the basis of synchronous or immediate subsequent operations, who also would have been excluded from SAPPHIRE, the overall rates for stroke (1.65%; P =.69), death (1.65%; P =.09), and MI (0.83%; P =.71) were not significantly different from those in the study population.
CEA can be performed in patients at high risk, with stroke and death rates well within accepted standards. These data question the use of CAS as an alternative to CEA, even in patients at high risk.
对于被排除在北美症状性颈动脉内膜切除术试验和无症状性颈动脉粥样硬化研究之外的患者,以及那些被认为接受颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)风险较高的患者,已提出颈动脉血管成形术和支架置入术(CAS)作为CEA的替代方案。鉴于最近公布的高危患者的CAS数据,我们回顾了我们的CEA经验。
回顾性分析1998年至2002年间连续接受CEA治疗的患者记录,并根据“高危”或CAS-CEA试验(即高危内膜切除术患者的支架置入和血管成形术[SAPPHIRE]试验)的纳入和排除标准对风险进行分层。
在776例CEA手术中,323例(42%)被认为是高危手术,其依据的标准包括应激试验阳性(n = 109,14%)、年龄大于80岁(n = 85,11%)、对侧颈动脉闭塞(n = 66,9%)、肺功能障碍(n = 56,7%)、高位颈段病变(n = 36,5%)以及再次颈动脉手术(n = 27,3%)。其他高危标准包括近期心肌梗死(MI)、心脏手术或心功能Ⅲ或Ⅳ级;左心室射血分数小于30%;对侧喉返神经麻痹;以及既往颈部放疗(各<1.5%)。高危组和低危组的临床表现相似:无症状(73%对73%)、短暂性脑缺血发作(23%对22%)和既往卒中(4%对5%)。总体术后卒中率为1.4%(有症状的,2.9%;无症状的,0.9%)。高危CEA和低危CEA的卒中率比较无统计学差异。与卒中风险显著增加相关的因素包括颈部放射治疗、Ⅲ或Ⅳ级心绞痛、有症状表现以及年龄60岁及以下。总体死亡率为0.3%(有症状的,0.5%;无症状的,0.2%),高危组(0.6%)和低危组(0.0%)之间无显著差异。非Q波MI在高危组更常见(3.1%对0.9%;P <.05)。有症状的高危组中不良临床事件(死亡、卒中、MI)的复合聚集更常见(9.3%对1.6%;P <.005),但无症状队列中并非如此。在有局部危险因素(如高位颈动脉分叉、再次手术和颈部放射治疗)的患者中,主要颅神经损伤有增加趋势(4.6%对1.7%;P <.13)。在121例因同期或随后立即进行手术而被排除的患者中(这些患者也会被SAPPHIRE试验排除),卒中(1.65%;P =.69)、死亡(1.65%;P =.09)和MI(0.83%;P =.71)总体发生率与研究人群无显著差异。
高危患者可以进行CEA,其卒中和死亡率完全在可接受标准范围内。这些数据对将CAS作为CEA的替代方案提出了质疑,即使是在高危患者中。