Suppr超能文献

同期颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术的治疗结果

Treatment Outcome of Carotid Stenting and CEA in the Same Period.

作者信息

Kobayashi E, Uchino Y, Ono J, Yamaura A

机构信息

Department of Neurosurgery, Chiba University School of Medicine; Japan.

出版信息

Interv Neuroradiol. 2004 Mar 30;10 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):93-6. doi: 10.1177/15910199040100S114. Epub 2008 Jun 9.

Abstract

Angioplasty with stent deployment is a promising option for the treatment of carotid stenosis. However, the definite treatment indication is still unknown through lack of scientific evidences in the randomized controlled trial, which is now on going. We compared the short-term outcome, such as periprocedural complication rate, cerebral blood flow, subsequent ischemic events and restenosis, between carotid stenting (CS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the same period to investigate the justice of our present indication for CS. Fifty-five patients with carotid stenosis greater than 70% were treated by CS or CEA in a constant indication. Twenty-five times of CEA were indicated in patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria of NASCET without the exclusion criteria, 30 times of CS in patients with the exclusion criteria. No major procedure-related complication was found in either group. One patient (3.3%) in CS group suffered a minor ischemic stroke during the procedure, just after postdilatation. One patient underwent myocardial infarction in CEA group, and one patient congestive heart failure in CS group within one week after the procedure. During a mean follow-up period of 19 months, no further stroke occurred in either group. There was no lesion-related mortality, but one patient in each group was dead of heart disease. As for restenosis, one patient in each group showed recurrent stenosis on angiogram 12 and 24 months after the treatment. Restenosis rate calculated by the personyear method in CEA and CS group was almost same, 2.3% per year. Stenting seemed to be so safe and effective for cases refractory to CEA that the present indication for CS is thought to be reasonable, though it is necessary to draw a decisive conclusion in randomized trials.

摘要

血管成形术联合支架置入是治疗颈动脉狭窄的一种有前景的选择。然而,由于正在进行的随机对照试验缺乏科学证据,确切的治疗指征仍不明确。我们比较了同期颈动脉支架置入术(CS)和颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)的短期结果,如围手术期并发症发生率、脑血流量、随后的缺血性事件和再狭窄情况,以研究我们目前CS指征的合理性。55例颈动脉狭窄大于70%的患者按照固定指征接受了CS或CEA治疗。符合NASCET纳入标准且无排除标准的患者中有25例接受了CEA治疗,有排除标准的患者中有30例接受了CS治疗。两组均未发现与手术相关的重大并发症。CS组有1例患者(3.3%)在术后扩张后手术过程中发生轻度缺血性卒中。CEA组有1例患者在术后1周内发生心肌梗死,CS组有1例患者发生充血性心力衰竭。在平均19个月的随访期内,两组均未发生进一步的卒中。无病变相关死亡,但每组各有1例患者死于心脏病。至于再狭窄,两组各有1例患者在治疗后12个月和24个月的血管造影显示有复发性狭窄。用年人时法计算的CEA组和CS组的再狭窄率几乎相同,每年2.3%。对于CEA治疗难治的病例,支架置入似乎是安全有效的,因此目前CS的指征被认为是合理的,尽管有必要在随机试验中得出决定性结论。

相似文献

1
Treatment Outcome of Carotid Stenting and CEA in the Same Period.同期颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术的治疗结果
Interv Neuroradiol. 2004 Mar 30;10 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):93-6. doi: 10.1177/15910199040100S114. Epub 2008 Jun 9.
2
Outcome of carotid artery stenting in the hands of vascular surgeons.血管外科医生进行颈动脉支架置入术的结果。
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2017 Aug;402(5):805-810. doi: 10.1007/s00423-017-1585-6. Epub 2017 May 30.

本文引用的文献

5
Global experience in cervical carotid artery stent placement.全球颈总动脉支架置入经验。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2000 Jun;50(2):160-7. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1522-726x(200006)50:2<160::aid-ccd2>3.0.co;2-e.

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