• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

颈动脉内膜切除术后再狭窄手术的耐久性。

Durability of surgery for restenosis after carotid endarterectomy.

作者信息

de Borst Gert J, Zanen Pieter, de Vries Jean-Paul P, van de Pavoordt Erik D, Ackerstaff Rob G, Moll Frans L

机构信息

Department of Pulmonology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Vasc Surg. 2008 Feb;47(2):363-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.10.002. Epub 2007 Dec 26.

DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2007.10.002
PMID:18155873
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The role of carotid surgery for the management of restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is challenged by carotid artery stenting (CAS). We reviewed redo CEA in a consecutive series of patients to determine the safety, durability, and long-term benefit associated with repeat surgical treatment for restenosis.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 73 redo procedures in 72 patients (57% men) with a mean age 66 years (range, 49-81 years) was analyzed. The mean interval between prior CEA and redo CEA was 53 months (range, 8-192 months). Operative indications included symptomatic restenosis in 28 patients (38%). A patch angioplasty was performed in 62 patients (85%). The main outcome measures included perioperative and late stroke and death, and the development of secondary restenosis.

RESULTS

There were no perioperative deaths or strokes. During a mean follow-up of 52 months (range, 12-144 months), the Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival was 85% at 5 years. At 5 years, the cumulative rate of freedom from all strokes was 98%, and the freedom from ipsilateral stroke was 100%. After secondary procedures, re-recurrent stenosis > or =50% occurred in 10 patients (13.7%). The cumulative freedom from re-restenosis (> or =50%) was 85% at 5 years. Five patients (7%) received tertiary carotid reconstructions.

CONCLUSION

Repeat CEA for recurrent stenosis can be performed safely with excellent long-term protection from stroke. These data provide a standard against which the results of CAS can be compared.

摘要

背景

颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)对颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)后再狭窄治疗中颈动脉手术的作用提出了挑战。我们回顾了一系列连续患者的再次CEA手术,以确定与再次手术治疗再狭窄相关的安全性、耐久性和长期益处。

方法

分析了72例患者(57%为男性)连续进行的73次再次手术,平均年龄66岁(范围49 - 81岁)。上次CEA与再次CEA之间的平均间隔为53个月(范围8 - 192个月)。手术指征包括28例(38%)有症状的再狭窄。62例患者(85%)进行了补片血管成形术。主要观察指标包括围手术期和晚期中风及死亡情况,以及继发性再狭窄的发生情况。

结果

围手术期无死亡或中风发生。在平均52个月(范围12 - 144个月)的随访中,5年时的Kaplan - Meier累积生存率为85%。5年时,无所有中风的累积发生率为98%,同侧无中风发生率为100%。二次手术后,10例患者(13.7%)出现再发狭窄≥50%。5年时无再狭窄(≥50%)的累积发生率为85%。5例患者(7%)接受了三次颈动脉重建术。

结论

对复发性狭窄进行再次CEA手术可安全进行,并能长期有效预防中风。这些数据提供了一个可与CAS结果进行比较的标准。

相似文献

1
Durability of surgery for restenosis after carotid endarterectomy.颈动脉内膜切除术后再狭窄手术的耐久性。
J Vasc Surg. 2008 Feb;47(2):363-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.10.002. Epub 2007 Dec 26.
2
Reoperations for carotid artery stenosis: role of primary and secondary reconstructions.颈动脉狭窄的再次手术:一期和二期重建的作用
J Vasc Surg. 2001 Mar;33(3):495-503. doi: 10.1067/mva.2001.111730.
3
Restenosis after eversion vs patch closure carotid endarterectomy.外翻与补片修补颈动脉内膜切除术后再狭窄
J Vasc Surg. 2007 Jul;46(1):41-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.02.055.
4
A comparative analysis of the outcomes of carotid stenting and carotid endarterectomy in women.女性颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗效果的对比分析。
J Vasc Surg. 2010 Feb;51(2):337-44; discussion 344. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2009.08.095. Epub 2009 Nov 24.
5
A fifteen-year experience with carotid endarterectomy after a formal operative protocol requiring highly frequent patch angioplasty.一项为期15年的颈动脉内膜切除术经验,该手术遵循要求频繁进行补片血管成形术的正式手术方案。
J Vasc Surg. 2000 Apr;31(4):724-35. doi: 10.1067/mva.2000.104591.
6
Safety and durability of redo carotid operation: an 11-year experience.再次颈动脉手术的安全性与耐久性:11年经验
J Vasc Surg. 2004 Jan;39(1):155-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2003.07.003.
7
Diabetes is not a predictor of outcome for carotid revascularization with stenting as it may be for carotid endarterectomy.糖尿病并不是颈动脉支架置入术(carotid revascularization with stenting)预后的预测因素,而颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy)可能是。
J Vasc Surg. 2012 Jan;55(1):79-89; discussion 88-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.07.080. Epub 2011 Nov 3.
8
A Propensity Matched Comparison for Open and Endovascular Treatment of Post-carotid Endarterectomy Restenosis.颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)后再狭窄的开放与血管内治疗的倾向评分匹配比较。
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018 Feb;55(2):153-161. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2017.11.015. Epub 2017 Dec 26.
9
Outcomes of carotid artery stenting versus historical surgical controls for radiation-induced carotid stenosis.放射性颈动脉狭窄行颈动脉支架置入术与历史手术对照的结果。
J Vasc Surg. 2011 Mar;53(3):629-36.e1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.09.056. Epub 2011 Jan 8.
10
Alert for increased long-term follow-up after carotid artery stenting: results of a prospective, randomized, single-center trial of carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy.颈动脉支架置入术后长期随访增加的警示:颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术的前瞻性、随机、单中心试验结果
J Vasc Surg. 2008 Jul;48(1):93-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.02.049. Epub 2008 May 16.

引用本文的文献

1
Risks Associated With Primary and Redo Carotid Endarterectomy in the Endovascular Era.血管内时代初次颈动脉内膜切除术和再次颈动脉内膜切除术的相关风险。
JAMA Surg. 2018 Mar 1;153(3):252-259. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.4477.
2
Anatomical and Technical Factors Influence the Rate of In-Stent Restenosis following Carotid Artery Stenting for the Treatment of Post-Carotid Endarterectomy Stenosis.解剖学和技术因素影响颈动脉内膜切除术后狭窄行颈动脉支架置入术后支架内再狭窄的发生率。
PLoS One. 2016 Sep 9;11(9):e0161716. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161716. eCollection 2016.
3
Carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in patients undergoing reintervention after prior carotid endarterectomy.
颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉内膜切除术再干预患者。
J Vasc Surg. 2014 Jan;59(1):8-15.e1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2013.06.070. Epub 2013 Aug 22.
4
In-hospital versus postdischarge adverse events following carotid endarterectomy.颈动脉内膜切除术住院期间与出院后不良事件比较。
J Vasc Surg. 2013 Jun;57(6):1568-75, 1575.e1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2012.11.072. Epub 2013 Feb 4.