Attigah Nicolas, Külkens Sonja, Deyle Claudia, Ringleb Peter, Hartmann Marius, Geisbüsch Philipp, Böckler Dittmar
Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2010 Feb;24(2):190-5. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2009.07.002. Epub 2009 Sep 12.
We evaluated retrospectively early and midterm results of conventional redo surgery and carotid stent-assisted angioplasty (CAS) in the treatment of carotis restenosis (CR) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA).
From January 1989 to April 2007, 79 consecutive patients (61 male, median age 65 years, range 51-82) were treated for CR. Seven patients were treated for bilateral CR, accounting for 86 reconstructions, 41 CEAs, and 45 CAS procedures. Fifty (58.1%) CRs were asymptomatic, and 36 (41.9%) CRs were symptomatic. Treatment for CR was recommended for any stenosis >70% based on duplex ultrasound imaging with a peak systolic flow of >200 cm/sec.
There was no difference in age in the two groups. The incidence of atherosclerotic risk factors and comorbidity was similar in the two groups. All patients received aspirin as basic medical treatment, and 53 patients (61.6%) were on statin therapy. The time period from primary CEA to reoperation or CAS was significantly shorter in the CAS group than in the CEA group (54.1 vs. 85.34 months, p=0.003). Correspondingly, the proportion of early CR was significantly higher in the CAS group as well (20 vs. 5, p=0.001). There was no perioperative mortality (30 days) in the two groups. In the CEA group, four neurological complications were seen versus one in the CAS group (p=0.13). Wound site and cardiac complication rates were significantly higher in the CEA group (p=0.029) with a median follow-up of 35 months (range 12-190). The overall actuarial survival after 60 months was 83% in the CEA group and 100% in the CAS group (p=0.87). Freedom from repeat intervention for re-recurrence was 89% in the CEA group and 95% in the CAS group (p=0.52).
CAS is feasible and safe in treating CR. Furthermore, midterm overall survival and need for treatment of re-recurrence is equal to CEA. However, reoperation is an established option and remains the treatment of choice when contraindications for CAS are evident.
我们回顾性评估了传统再次手术和颈动脉支架辅助血管成形术(CAS)治疗颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)后颈动脉再狭窄(CR)的早期和中期结果。
1989年1月至2007年4月,连续79例患者(61例男性,中位年龄65岁,范围51 - 82岁)接受了CR治疗。7例患者接受双侧CR治疗,共计86次重建、41次CEA和45次CAS手术。50例(58.1%)CR无症状,36例(41.9%)CR有症状。基于双功超声成像,收缩期峰值血流>200 cm/秒,任何狭窄>70%时建议进行CR治疗。
两组患者年龄无差异。两组动脉粥样硬化危险因素和合并症的发生率相似。所有患者均接受阿司匹林作为基础治疗,53例患者(61.6%)接受他汀类药物治疗。CAS组从初次CEA到再次手术或CAS的时间明显短于CEA组(54.1对85.34个月,p = 0.003)。相应地,CAS组早期CR的比例也明显更高(20例对5例,p = 0.001)。两组均无围手术期死亡(30天)。CEA组出现4例神经并发症,CAS组出现1例(p = 0.13)。CEA组伤口部位和心脏并发症发生率明显更高(p = 0.029),中位随访35个月(范围12 - 190个月)。CEA组60个月后的总体精算生存率为83%,CAS组为100%(p = 0.87)。CEA组再次复发后免于再次干预的比例为89%,CAS组为95%(p = 0.52)。
CAS治疗CR是可行且安全的。此外,中期总体生存率和再次复发的治疗需求与CEA相当。然而,再次手术是一种既定的选择,当CAS的禁忌症明显时,仍然是首选治疗方法。