Sarasota Vascular Specialists, affiliated with Florida State University Medical School, Sarasota, Fla.
J Vasc Surg. 2013 Oct;58(4):935-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2013.04.011.
Although controversial, carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been proposed as being safer than carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with a contralateral internal carotid occlusion (CCO). Arguably, with a CCO, CAS should be even safer than CEA if a shunt is not used. Accordingly, we reviewed our experience with 2183 CEAs performed routinely without a shunt to evaluate the risk of CEA performed in a subset of 147 patients with a CCO.
Between 1988 and 2011, 147 CEAs (111 men [75%], 36 women [25%]) were routinely performed without a shunt despite CCO. Of these patients, 76% were asymptomatic. CEAs were performed by seven surgeons using standard techniques (not eversion), with patients under general anesthesia and blood pressure maintained at >130 mm Hg. All patients received heparin (7500 U), and protamine reversal was routine. Median cross-clamp time was 20 minutes (range, 14-40 minutes).
Three neurologic events occurred ≤ 30 days (2.0%). One transient ischemic attack (TIA) occurred immediately, and one occurred on the first postoperative day due to occlusion of the endarterectomy site. One patient sustained an immediate stroke and died of a large computed tomography-documented atheroembolic shower.
Our data demonstrate the safety of CEA in the presence of a CCO, even when performed without a shunt. It is unlikely that the stroke or delayed TIA could be attributed to nonshunting or CCO. Even if so, the stroke and death rates would be lower than those previously reported for patients undergoing CEA in the presence of a CCO. This may be due to short cross-clamp times, careful technique, general anesthesia, and blood pressure support. Given these low adverse event rates, our experience refutes the assumption that patients with a CCO are at such a high risk for CEA that the only alternative is CAS.
尽管存在争议,但对于患有对侧颈内动脉闭塞(CCO)的患者,颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)已被提出比颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)更安全。如果不使用分流器,有 CCO 的情况下,CAS 应该比 CEA 更安全。因此,我们回顾了我们对 2183 例行常规 CEA 治疗且不使用分流器的患者的经验,以评估在 147 例 CCO 患者亚组中进行 CEA 的风险。
1988 年至 2011 年,尽管存在 CCO,但我们仍常规对 147 例行 CEA 治疗且不使用分流器(111 例男性[75%],36 例女性[25%])。这些患者中,76%为无症状。CEA 由 7 位外科医生使用标准技术(非外翻)进行,患者接受全身麻醉,血压维持在>130mmHg。所有患者均接受肝素(7500U)治疗,且常规使用鱼精蛋白逆转。中位夹闭时间为 20 分钟(范围 14-40 分钟)。
3 例神经系统事件发生在 30 天内(2.0%)。1 例发生短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA),1 例发生在术后第 1 天,由于内膜切除术部位闭塞。1 例患者发生急性脑卒中,因大量 CT 证实的粥样栓子脱落而死亡。
我们的数据表明,即使在存在 CCO 的情况下,CEA 也是安全的,即使不使用分流器也是如此。发生脑卒中或迟发性 TIA 不太可能归因于未分流或 CCO。即使如此,其脑卒中发生率和死亡率也会低于先前报道的 CEA 治疗 CCO 患者。这可能是由于夹闭时间短、技术精细、全身麻醉和血压支持。鉴于这些低不良事件发生率,我们的经验反驳了这样一种假设,即 CCO 患者行 CEA 的风险极高,只能选择 CAS。