Folmar Jessica, Sachar Ravish, Mann Tift
Wake Heart and Vascular Associates, Wake Heart Center, 3000 New Bern Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27610, USA.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007 Feb 15;69(3):355-61. doi: 10.1002/ccd.21049.
Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has become accepted as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for revascularization of the internal carotid artery (ICA) among high risk patients. CAS from the femoral approach can be problematic due to access site complications as well as technical difficulties related to peripheral vascular disease (PVD) and/or anatomical variations of the aortic arch. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the feasibility of the radial artery as an alternative approach for CAS.
Forty-two patients (mean age 71 +/- 1, 26 male) underwent CAS. All had a CA stenosis greater than 80% and comorbid conditions increasing the risk of carotid endarterectomy. The target common carotid artery (CCA) was initially cannulated via the radial artery using a 5F Simmons 1 diagnostic catheter which was then advanced to the external CA (ECA) over an extra support 0.014" coronary guidewire. After removing the coronary guidewire, a 0.035" guidewire was advanced into the ECA, and the Simmons 1 was exchanged for a 5F or 6F shuttle sheath and positioned in the distal CCA. In four patients with a bovine aortic arch, the left CCA was accessed with a 5F Amplatz R2 catheter which was then exchanged for a shuttle sheath over a 0.035" guidewire. CAS was performed using standard techniques with weight-based bivalirudin for anticoagulation.
CAS was successful in 35/42 (83%) patients, including 28/29 (97%) right CA, 4/5 (80%) bovine left CA, 7/13 (54%) left CA. Mean interventional time was 30 +/- 3 minutes. The sheath was removed immediately after the procedure. There were no radial access site complications. One patient sustained a stroke 24 hrs after the procedure with complete resolution of symptoms (Mean NIH stroke scale 2.0 +/- 0.3 before, 1.9 +/- 0.3 after). Median hospital stay was 2 +/- 0.6 days. Inadequate catheter support at the origin of the CCA was the technical cause of failure in the seven unsuccessful cases.
CAS using the transradial approach appears to be safe and technically feasible. The technique may be particularly useful in patients with right ICA lesions and severe PVD or unfavorable arch anatomy, and among patients with a bovine aortic arch.
对于高危患者,颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)已成为颈内动脉(ICA)血运重建的一种替代颈动脉内膜切除术的方法。经股动脉途径进行CAS可能会出现问题,这是由于穿刺部位并发症以及与外周血管疾病(PVD)和/或主动脉弓解剖变异相关的技术困难。本研究的目的是评估经桡动脉作为CAS替代途径的可行性。
42例患者(平均年龄71±1岁,男性26例)接受了CAS。所有患者的颈动脉狭窄均大于80%,且合并症增加了颈动脉内膜切除术的风险。最初使用5F Simmons 1诊断导管经桡动脉穿刺颈总动脉(CCA),然后在一根额外支撑的0.014英寸冠状动脉导丝引导下将导管推进至颈外动脉(ECA)。移除冠状动脉导丝后,将一根0.035英寸导丝推进至ECA,将Simmons 1导管换成5F或6F穿梭鞘管并置于CCA远端。在4例牛型主动脉弓患者中,使用5F Amplatz R2导管进入左CCA,然后在一根0.035英寸导丝引导下换成穿梭鞘管。使用标准技术并根据体重使用比伐卢定进行抗凝来实施CAS。
35/42(83%)例患者CAS成功,包括28/29(97%)例右侧颈动脉、4/5(80%)例牛型主动脉弓左侧颈动脉、7/13(54%)例左侧颈动脉。平均介入时间为30±3分钟。术后立即移除鞘管。未出现桡动脉穿刺部位并发症。1例患者术后24小时发生卒中,症状完全缓解(术前美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表平均评分为2.0±0.3,术后为1.9±0.3)。中位住院时间为2±0.6天。7例手术失败病例的技术原因是CCA起始处导管支撑不足。
经桡动脉途径进行CAS似乎是安全且技术可行的。该技术在右侧ICA病变、严重PVD或主动脉弓解剖结构不佳的患者以及牛型主动脉弓患者中可能特别有用。