Suppr超能文献

血管内超声评估颈动脉粥样硬化病变中使用血管内保护装置辅助与未使用保护装置的安全性。

Safety of embolic protection device-assisted and unprotected intravascular ultrasound in evaluating carotid artery atherosclerotic lesions.

机构信息

Department of Cardiac and Vascular Diseases, Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland.

出版信息

Med Sci Monit. 2012 Feb;18(2):MT7-18. doi: 10.12659/msm.882452.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Significant atherosclerotic stenosis of internal carotid artery (ICA) origin is common (5-10% at ≥ 60 years). Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) enables high-resolution (120 µm) plaque imaging, and IVUS-elucidated features of the coronary plaque were recently shown to be associated with its symptomatic rupture/thrombosis risk. Safety of the significant carotid plaque IVUS imaging in a large unselected population is unknown.

MATERIAL/METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the safety of embolic protection device (EPD)-assisted vs. unprotected ICA-IVUS in a series of consecutive subjects with ≥ 50% ICA stenosis referred for carotid artery stenting (CAS), including 104 asymptomatic (aS) and 187 symptomatic (S) subjects (age 47-83 y, 187 men). EPD use was optional for IVUS, but mandatory for CAS.

RESULTS

Evaluation was performed of 107 ICAs (36.8%) without EPD and 184 with EPD. Lesions imaged under EPD were overall more severe (peak-systolic velocity 2.97 ± 0.08 vs. 2.20 ± 0.08 m/s, end-diastolic velocity 1.0 ± 0.04 vs. 0.7 ± 0.03 m/s, stenosis severity of 85.7 ± 0.5% vs. 77.7 ± 0.6% by catheter angiography; mean ± SEM; p<0.01 for all comparisons) and more frequently S (50.0% vs. 34.6%, p=0.01). No ICA perforation or dissection, and no major stroke or death occurred. There was no IVUS-triggered cerebral embolization. In the procedures of (i) unprotected IVUS and no CAS, (ii) unprotected IVUS followed by CAS (filters - 39, flow reversal/blockade - 3), (iii) EPD-protected (filters - 135, flow reversal/blockade - 48) IVUS + CAS, TIA occurred in 1.5% vs. 4.8% vs. 2.7%, respectively, and minor stroke in 0% vs. 2.4% vs. 2.1%, respectively. EPD intolerance (on-filter ICA spasm or flow reversal/blockade intolerance) occurred in 9/225 (4.0%). IVUS increased the procedure duration by 7.27 ± 0.19 min.

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid IVUS is safe and, for the less severe lesions in particular, it may not require mandatory EPD use. High-risk lesions can be safely evaluated with IVUS under flow reversal/blockade.

摘要

背景

颈内动脉(ICA)起源处的显著动脉粥样硬化狭窄很常见(≥60 岁时为 5-10%)。血管内超声(IVUS)可实现高分辨率(120μm)斑块成像,最近表明冠状动脉斑块的 IVUS 解析特征与斑块的症状性破裂/血栓形成风险相关。在未经选择的大人群中,使用有显著颈动脉斑块 IVUS 成像的安全性尚不清楚。

材料/方法:我们前瞻性评估了在因颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)而接受治疗的≥50%ICA 狭窄的连续患者系列中,使用或不使用栓塞保护装置(EPD)的 ICA-IVUS 的安全性,包括 104 例无症状(aS)和 187 例有症状(S)患者(年龄 47-83 岁,187 名男性)。IVUS 可选择使用 EPD,但 CAS 必须使用。

结果

共评估了 107 个未使用 EPD 的 ICA(36.8%)和 184 个使用 EPD 的 ICA。EPD 下成像的病变总体更严重(峰值收缩速度 2.97±0.08 比 2.20±0.08m/s,舒张末期速度 1.0±0.04 比 0.7±0.03m/s,导管血管造影测量的狭窄严重程度 85.7±0.5%比 77.7±0.6%;均为平均值±SEM;所有比较的 p<0.01),且更常见于 S 组(50.0%比 34.6%,p=0.01)。未发生 ICA 穿孔或夹层,也未发生重大中风或死亡。没有 IVUS 触发的脑栓塞。在(i)未保护的 IVUS 且无 CAS、(ii)未保护的 IVUS 后行 CAS(过滤器-39 个,血流反转/阻断-3 个)、(iii)EPD 保护的(过滤器-135 个,血流反转/阻断-48 个)IVUS+CAS 这三种情况下,TIA 分别发生在 1.5%、4.8%和 2.7%,小中风分别发生在 0%、2.4%和 2.1%。EPD 不耐受(在过滤器上 ICA 痉挛或血流反转/阻断不耐受)发生在 9/225(4.0%)患者中。IVUS 将手术时间延长了 7.27±0.19 分钟。

结论

颈动脉 IVUS 是安全的,对于较轻的病变,特别是可能不需要强制性使用 EPD。高危病变可以在血流反转/阻断下安全地使用 IVUS 进行评估。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7fc3/3560589/6eb60ec422f3/medscimonit-18-2-MT7-g001.jpg

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