Suppr超能文献

颈动脉内膜切除术中颈内动脉远端的早期控制:它能减少脑微栓子吗?

Early control of distal internal carotid artery during carotid endarterectomy: does it reduce cerebral microemboli?

作者信息

Mommertz G, Das M, Langer S, Koeppel T A, Krings T, Mess W H, Schiefer J, Jacobs M J

机构信息

European Vascular Center Aachen-Maasricht, University Hospitals Aachen-Maastricht, Germany.

出版信息

J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2010 Jun;51(3):369-75.

Abstract

AIM

According to the results of the large trials on carotid endarterectomy (CEA), this type of surgery is only warranted if perioperative mortality and morbidity are kept considerably low. Less attention has been paid to methods of cerebral protection during CEA, although intraoperative transcranial Doppler (TCD) can visualise intracerebral microemboli (MES) during routine carotid dissection, although MES occur throughout the CEA, only those during dissection are related to neurological outcome. Prevention of MES by means of early control of the distal internal carotid artery dislodging from the carotid artery plaque during dissection is very likely the mechanism behind an eventual benefit from this approach. Hence, the amount of MES might serve as a surrogate parameter for the risk of periprocedural neurological events. So, the aim of the present study was to evaluate whether early control of the distal carotid artery during CEA is capable of reducing the number of MES by means of a prospective randomised trial.

METHODS

Twenty-eight patients (29 procedures) could be prospectively included in our study. Before surgery we randomly assigned the patients to two groups: group A (N.=12): CEA by means of early control of the distal internal carotid artery; group B (N.=17): CEA with dissection of the total carotid bifurcation before clamping the arteries. Periprocedurally, we continuously monitored the cerebral blood flow in the ipsilateral middle cerebral artery by means of TCD. Pre- and postoperative morbidity were independently verified by a neurologist <2 days before and not later than five days after the procedure. Values of microembolic signs during dissection were summarised with arithmetic means and standard deviations. For further analysis non parametric Wilcoxon test was performed between both methods. P-values <0.05 were considered as statistically significant. Wilcoxon test was performed to compare both methods concerning clamp- and procedure times.

RESULTS

We performed EEA 26 times, in three patients a longitudinal arteriotomy with endarterectomy and patchplasty was performed, in one of these patients a shunt was necessary. In 12 twelve patients MES occurred during the dissection before clamping. Eight of these patients belonged to group B and four patients to group A. The mean number of MES during dissection for group A was 2.4 (SD 4.6; 5-15) and for group B 3.9 (SD 7.1; 2-28). There is no statistically significant difference in the Wilcoxon-test; P=0.4375. There was no patient showing reperfusion syndrom or clinical signs of a new cerebral infarction or any other neurological deficit. There were no other major complications like myocardial infarction or death as well as no minor complications like periphereal nerve lesions, bleeding or wound healing disturbance.

CONCLUSION

In this prospective, randomised trial early control of the distal internal carotid artery did not reduce the occurrence of MES during dissection of the carotid bifurcation. Also, the total number of MES throughout the procedure and postoperatively was comparable between both groups. The procedure related times as well as the clinical outcome did not differ significantly. Thus, early control of the distal internal carotid artery has got no advantage but also no disadvantage as compared to the traditional CEA technique. However, a limitation of the study is the small number of patients included.

摘要

目的

根据颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)大型试验的结果,只有在围手术期死亡率和发病率保持在相当低的水平时,这种手术才是必要的。尽管术中经颅多普勒(TCD)可以在常规颈动脉剥离过程中可视化脑内微栓子(MES),但在CEA过程中对脑保护方法的关注较少。虽然MES在整个CEA过程中都会出现,但只有剥离过程中的那些与神经学结果相关。在剥离过程中通过早期控制颈内动脉远端使其脱离颈动脉斑块来预防MES很可能是这种方法最终获益的背后机制。因此,MES的数量可能作为围手术期神经事件风险的替代参数。所以,本研究的目的是通过一项前瞻性随机试验评估在CEA期间早期控制颈内动脉远端是否能够减少MES的数量。

方法

28例患者(29例手术)可前瞻性纳入我们的研究。手术前,我们将患者随机分为两组:A组(N = 12):通过早期控制颈内动脉远端进行CEA;B组(N = 17):在夹闭动脉前对整个颈动脉分叉进行剥离的CEA。在围手术期,我们通过TCD持续监测同侧大脑中动脉的脑血流量。术前和术后发病率由神经科医生在手术前<2天和手术后不迟于5天独立核实。剥离过程中微栓子信号的值用算术平均值和标准差汇总。为进一步分析,对两种方法进行非参数Wilcoxon检验。P值<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。进行Wilcoxon检验以比较两种方法在夹闭时间和手术时间方面的情况。

结果

我们进行了26次CEA,3例患者进行了纵向动脉切开术加内膜切除术和补片成形术,其中1例患者需要分流。12例患者在夹闭前的剥离过程中出现MES。这些患者中8例属于B组,4例属于A组。A组在剥离过程中MES的平均数量为2.4(标准差4.6;5 - 15),B组为3.9(标准差7.1;2 - 28)。Wilcoxon检验无统计学显著差异;P = 0.4375。没有患者出现再灌注综合征或新的脑梗死临床体征或任何其他神经功能缺损。也没有心肌梗死或死亡等其他主要并发症以及周围神经损伤、出血或伤口愈合障碍等轻微并发症。

结论

在这项前瞻性随机试验中,早期控制颈内动脉远端并没有减少颈动脉分叉剥离过程中MES的发生。此外,两组在整个手术过程中和术后MES的总数相当。手术相关时间以及临床结果没有显著差异。因此,与传统CEA技术相比,早期控制颈内动脉远端既没有优势也没有劣势。然而,该研究的一个局限性是纳入的患者数量较少。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验