Departments of Neurology.
J Neurosurg. 2013 Dec;119(6):1620-6. doi: 10.3171/2013.7.JNS122128. Epub 2013 Aug 23.
The risk of recurrence of cerebrovascular events within the first 72 hours of admission in patients hospitalized with symptomatic carotid artery (CA) stenoses and the risks and benefits of emergency CA intervention within the first hours after the onset of symptoms are not well known. Therefore, the authors aimed to assess (1) the ipsilateral recurrence rate within 72 hours of admission, in the period from 72 hours to 7 days, and after 7 days in patients presenting with nondisabling stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or amaurosis fugax (AF), and with an ipsilateral symptomatic CA stenosis of 50% or more, and (2) the risk of stroke in CA interventions within 48 hours of admission versus the risk in interventions performed after 48 hours.
Ninety-four patients were included in this study. These patients were admitted to hospital within 48 hours of a nondisabling stroke, TIA, or AF resulting from a symptomatic CA stenosis of 50% or more. The patients underwent carotid endarterectomy (85 patients) or CA stenting (9 patients). At baseline, the cardiovascular risk factors of the patients, the degree of symptomatic CA stenosis, and the type of secondary preventive treatment were assessed. The in-hospital recurrence rate of stroke, TIA, or AF ipsilateral to the symptomatic CA stenosis was determined for the first 72 hours after admission, from 72 hours to 7 days, and after 7 days. Procedure-related cerebrovascular events were also recorded.
The median time from symptom onset to CA intervention was 5 days (interquartile range 3.00-9.25 days). Twenty-one patients (22.3%) underwent CA intervention within 48 hours after being admitted. Overall, 15 recurrent cerebrovascular events were observed in 12 patients (12.8%) in the period between admission and CA intervention: 3 strokes (2 strokes in progress and 1 stroke) (3.2%), 5 TIAs (5.3%), and 1 AF (1.1%) occurred within the first 72 hours (total 9.6%) of admission; 1 TIA (1.1%) occurred between 72 hours and 7 days, and 5 TIAs (5.3%) occurred after more than 7 days. The corresponding actuarial cerebrovascular recurrence rates were 11.4% (within 72 hours of admission), 2.4% (between 72 hours and 7 days), and 7.9% (after 7 days). Among baseline characteristics, no predictive factors for cerebrovascular recurrence were identified. Procedure-related cerebrovascular events occurred at a rate of 4.3% (3 strokes and 1 TIA), and procedures performed within the first 48 hours and procedures performed after 48 hours had a similar frequency of these events (4.5% vs. 4.1%, respectively; p = 0.896).
The in-hospital recurrence of cerebrovascular events was quite low, but all recurrent strokes occurred within 72 hours. The risk of stroke associated with a CA intervention performed within the first 48 hours was not increased compared with that for later interventions. This raises the question of the optimal timing of CA intervention in symptomatic CA stenosis. To answer this question, more data are needed, preferably from large randomized trials.
患有症状性颈动脉狭窄(CA)住院患者在入院后前 72 小时内发生脑血管事件的复发风险,以及在症状发作后数小时内进行紧急 CA 干预的风险和获益尚未明确。因此,作者旨在评估(1)出现症状性 CA 狭窄≥50%的非致残性卒、短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)或一过性黑矇患者在入院后前 72 小时内、72 小时至 7 天以及 7 天后同侧的同侧复发率,(2)在入院后 48 小时内进行 CA 介入与在入院后 48 小时后进行干预的风险。
这项研究纳入了 94 例因症状性 CA 狭窄≥50%而出现非致残性卒、TIA 或一过性黑矇的患者。这些患者在发病后 48 小时内被收入院。所有患者均接受了颈动脉内膜切除术(85 例)或 CA 支架置入术(9 例)。在基线时,评估了患者的心血管危险因素、症状性 CA 狭窄程度以及二级预防治疗类型。确定了入院后前 72 小时内、72 小时至 7 天以及 7 天后同侧症状性 CA 狭窄的卒中、TIA 或 AF 的院内复发率。还记录了与操作相关的脑血管事件。
从症状发作到 CA 干预的中位时间为 5 天(四分位间距 3.00-9.25 天)。21 例(22.3%)患者在入院后 48 小时内接受了 CA 干预。总的来说,在接受 CA 干预之前的入院期间,12 例(12.8%)患者观察到 15 例复发性脑血管事件:3 例卒中(2 例进展性卒中和 1 例卒中)(3.2%),5 例 TIA(5.3%)和 1 例 AF(1.1%)发生在入院后前 72 小时内(总发生率 9.6%);1 例 TIA(1.1%)发生在 72 小时至 7 天之间,5 例 TIA(5.3%)发生在 7 天之后。相应的累积脑血管复发率分别为 11.4%(入院后 72 小时内)、2.4%(72 小时至 7 天)和 7.9%(7 天后)。在基线特征中,未发现与脑血管复发相关的预测因素。与操作相关的脑血管事件发生率为 4.3%(3 例卒中和 1 例 TIA),入院后前 48 小时内进行的操作与入院后 48 小时后进行的操作的这些事件发生率相似(4.5%与 4.1%,分别;p = 0.896)。
住院期间脑血管事件的复发率相当低,但所有复发性卒均发生在 72 小时内。与入院后前 48 小时内进行的 CA 干预相关的卒中风险并未增加。这就提出了在症状性 CA 狭窄中进行 CA 干预的最佳时机问题。为了回答这个问题,需要更多的数据,最好是来自大型随机试验的数据。