Crawford Robert S, Chung Thomas K, Hodgman Thomas, Pedraza Juan D, Corey Michael, Cambria Richard P
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery of the General Surgical Services, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 15 Parkman Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
J Vasc Surg. 2007 Jul;46(1):41-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.02.055.
Recurrent stenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), previously reported to occur in 1%/year after operation, is the finite limitation of CEA. Eversion endarterectomy has a perceived lower incidence of recurrent stenosis, although data to support this contention are conflicting. The goal of the present study was to compare the late anatomic results of patch closure (PC) vs eversion CEA.
Between January 1, 1995 and June 30, 2005, 950 CEA were performed by the senior author with adoption of eversion (EV) as the primary technique as of January 1, 2001. With minimum of 1-year follow-up by study inclusion criteria, complete follow-up data (including a duplex scan) was available for 155 PC and 135 EV patients. Incidence of moderate (50% to 70%) and severe (>70%) restenosis was examined at < or =2 months and >1 year after operation. Study end-points included late stroke, survival, and freedom from restenosis (moderate and severe) and were assessed by actuarial methods.
There were no differences in relevant demographic/clinical parameters, indication for surgery (69% overall asymptomatic) or early perioperative stroke/death (1.1% overall; P = .25) between PC and EV. After correction for different mean follow-up intervals (PC = 5.5 years vs EV = 3.5 years) by actuarial methods, there was no significant difference in late moderate (P = .91) or severe (P = .54) recurrent stenosis between PC and EV. In the group of patients with at least 1-year follow-up, 11/290 (3.8%) patients (4/135 EV, 7/155 PC; P = .39) required reintervention on their operated carotid artery at a cumulative follow-up interval of 4.5 years. Three strokes (3/290; 1.1%) occurred during late follow-up, all in the PC group, with only one related to the operated carotid artery. Late survival was similar between EV and PC, (P = .86). Female gender (odds ratio [OR] 3.72[1.02-13.5], P = .046) was associated with severe restenosis irrespective of surgical technique. Univariate analysis also showed that female gender (OR 7.6[CI: 0.88-66.7], P = .042) was associated with late stroke.
These findings indicate that restenosis rates are similar between eversion and patch CEA and likely represent biological remodeling phenomenon rather than technical variations of operations. While EV offers distinct advantages in certain anatomic circumstances, adoption of EV with the hope of decreasing restenosis is not warranted.
颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)后复发狭窄是该手术的有限局限性,此前报道其术后每年发生率为1%。外翻式内膜切除术的复发狭窄发生率据认为较低,尽管支持这一观点的数据存在矛盾。本研究的目的是比较补片修补(PC)与外翻式CEA的晚期解剖学结果。
在1995年1月1日至2005年6月30日期间,资深作者共进行了950例CEA手术,自2001年1月1日起采用外翻式(EV)作为主要技术。根据研究纳入标准,对至少随访1年的患者进行研究,155例PC患者和135例EV患者有完整的随访数据(包括双功超声扫描)。在术后≤2个月和>1年时检查中度(50%至70%)和重度(>70%)再狭窄的发生率。研究终点包括晚期卒中、生存率以及无再狭窄(中度和重度)情况,并通过精算方法进行评估。
PC组和EV组在相关人口统计学/临床参数、手术指征(总体69%无症状)或早期围手术期卒中/死亡(总体1.1%;P = 0.25)方面无差异。通过精算方法校正不同的平均随访间隔(PC = 5.5年 vs EV = 3.5年)后,PC组和EV组在晚期中度(P = 0.91)或重度(P = 0.54)复发狭窄方面无显著差异。在至少随访1年的患者组中,11/290(3.8%)例患者(4/135例EV,7/155例PC;P = 0.39)在累积随访间隔4.5年时需要对手术侧颈动脉进行再次干预。晚期随访期间发生了3例卒中(3/290;1.1%),均在PC组,其中只有1例与手术侧颈动脉有关。EV组和PC组的晚期生存率相似(P = 0.86)。无论手术技术如何,女性(优势比[OR] 3.72[1.02 - 13.5],P = 0.046)与重度再狭窄相关。单因素分析还显示,女性(OR 7.6[CI:0.88 - 66.7],P = 0.042)与晚期卒中相关。
这些发现表明,外翻式和补片式CEA的再狭窄率相似,可能代表生物学重塑现象而非手术技术差异。虽然EV在某些解剖情况下具有明显优势,但期望通过采用EV来降低再狭窄率是没有必要的。