Spinelli Francesco, Martelli Eugenio, Stilo Francesco, Pipitò Narayana, Benedetto Filippo, Spinelli Domenico, Squillaci Domenico, De Caridi Giovanni, Barillà David
Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2014 Jul;28(5):1329-34. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2013.12.031. Epub 2014 Feb 8.
The long-term results of carotid artery stenting (CAS) for post-carotid endarterectomy (CEA) restenosis are disappointing (4-year patency rates: ∼75%). Since 1988, our group has offered carotid bypass (CB) as an alternative to redo CEA and later also to CAS in this setting. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate early and late outcomes associated with CB in this population.
Data were collected from patients treated with CB in the year 2000-2012 for significant/symptomatic post-CEA restenosis (or intra-stent restenosis [ISR] after CAS for post-CEA restenosis). All patients had good life expectancy. CB was performed under loco-regional anesthesia. With the aid of sequential vessel clamping, the graft (great saphenous vein [GSV] or polytetrafluoroethylene) was anastomosed with the common carotid artery (side-to-end) and the distal internal carotid artery (end-to-side). Patients were followed with clinical and duplex scan assessments at 1, 3, and 6 months and yearly thereafter.
The study population comprised 21 patients (mean age 67.3 years; 17 men). CB was performed for post-CEA restenosis (or ISR after CAS for post-CEA restenosis, n=3) 51.2 months (mean) after the previous operation. GSV grafts were used in half of the cases (n=11; 52.4%); temporary shunting was used in 4 (19%) patients. Intraoperative complications (none fatal) occurred in 4 (19%) patients (3 transient peripheral nerve injuries, 1 cervical hematoma). During follow-up (mean 64.8 months), there were no neurologic complications or restenoses. Overall mortality was 33.3% (6 deaths from acute myocardial infarctions, 1 from a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm).
For post-CEA restenosis (or ISR after CAS for post-CEA restenosis), CB offers superior long-term patency rates than CAS (or redo angioplasty) and an acceptable risk of cranial nerve damage.
颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)后再狭窄行颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)的长期效果令人失望(4年通畅率约为75%)。自1988年以来,我们团队提供颈动脉旁路移植术(CB)作为再次行CEA的替代方案,后来在这种情况下也作为CAS的替代方案。这项回顾性研究的目的是调查该人群中与CB相关的早期和晚期结果。
收集2000年至2012年因CEA后严重/有症状再狭窄(或CEA后再狭窄行CAS后的支架内再狭窄[ISR])接受CB治疗的患者的数据。所有患者预期寿命良好。CB在局部麻醉下进行。借助顺序血管夹闭,将移植物(大隐静脉[GSV]或聚四氟乙烯)与颈总动脉(端侧吻合)和颈内动脉远端(侧端吻合)进行吻合。患者在1、3和6个月时进行临床和双功超声扫描评估,此后每年进行一次。
研究人群包括21例患者(平均年龄67.3岁;17例男性)。CB在先前手术后平均51.2个月用于CEA后再狭窄(或CEA后再狭窄行CAS后的ISR,n = 3)。一半病例(n = 11;52.4%)使用GSV移植物;4例(19%)患者使用了临时分流。4例(19%)患者发生术中并发症(无死亡)(3例短暂性周围神经损伤,1例颈部血肿)。在随访期间(平均64.8个月),未发生神经并发症或再狭窄。总死亡率为33.3%(6例死于急性心肌梗死,1例死于腹主动脉瘤破裂)。
对于CEA后再狭窄(或CEA后再狭窄行CAS后的ISR),CB提供了比CAS(或再次血管成形术)更高的长期通畅率以及可接受的颅神经损伤风险。