Stone Patrick A, AbuRahma Ali F, Mousa Albeir Y, Phang David, Hass Stephen M, Modak Asmita, Dearing David
Department of Surgery, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West Virginia University, Charleston, WV.
Department of Surgery, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West Virginia University, Charleston, WV.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2014 Aug;28(6):1530-8. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2014.02.017. Epub 2014 Feb 19.
Multiple studies have been conducted that demonstrate the superiority of patch angioplasty over primary closure for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Patch angioplasty with polytetrafluorethylene patches (ACUSEAL) have shown results comparable to patch angioplasty with saphenous vein and polyester patches. This is a prospective randomized study to compare the clinical outcomes of CEA using ACUSEAL versus bovine pericardium patching (Vascu-Guard).
Two hundred patients were randomized (1:1) to either ACUSEAL or Vascu-Guard patching. Demographic data/clinical characteristics were collected. Intraoperative hemostasis times and the frequency of reexploration for neck hematoma were recorded. All patients received immediate and 1-month postoperative duplex ultrasound studies, which were repeated at 6-month intervals. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the risk of restenosis and the stroke-free survival rates.
The demographics were similar in both groups, except for a higher incidence of current smokers in the ACUSEAL group and more patients with congestive heart failure in the Vascu-Guard group (P = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively). The mean operative internal carotid artery diameter and the mean arteriotomy length were similar in both groups. The mean hemostasis time was 4.90 min for ACUSEAL patching vs. 3.09 min for Vascu-Guard (P = 0.027); however, the mean operative times were similar for both groups (ACUSEAL 2.09 hr vs. Vascu-Guard 2.16 hr, P = 0.669). The incidence of reexploration for neck hematoma was higher in the Vascu-Guard group; 6.12% vs. 1.03% (P = 0.1183). The incidence of perioperative ipsilateral neurologic events was 3.09% for ACUSEAL patching vs. 1.02% for Vascu-Guard patching (P = 0.368). The mean follow-up period was 15 months. The respective freedom from ≥70% carotid restenosis at 1, 2, and 3 years were 100%, 100%, and 100% for ACUSEAL patching vs. 100%, 98%, and 98% for Vascu-Guard patching (P = 0.2478). The ipsilateral stroke-free rates at 1, 2, and 3 years were 96% for ACUSEAL and 99% for Vascu-Guard patching.
Although CEA patching with ACUSEAL versus Vascu-Guard differed in hemostasis time, the frequency of reexploration for neck hematomas was more frequent in the pericardial patch group; however, only 1 patient had documented suture line bleeding and the surgical reexploration rate is not likely to be patch related. There were not any significant differences in perioperative/late neurologic events and late restenosis in the 2 groups.
多项研究表明,在颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)中,补片血管成形术优于一期缝合。使用聚四氟乙烯补片(ACUSEAL)进行补片血管成形术的效果已显示与使用大隐静脉和聚酯补片进行补片血管成形术相当。这是一项前瞻性随机研究,旨在比较使用ACUSEAL与牛心包补片(Vascu-Guard)进行CEA的临床结果。
200例患者被随机(1:1)分为ACUSEAL组或Vascu-Guard组。收集人口统计学数据/临床特征。记录术中止血时间和颈部血肿再次探查的频率。所有患者均接受术后即刻及1个月的双功超声检查,并每6个月重复检查一次。采用Kaplan-Meier分析来估计再狭窄风险和无卒中生存率。
两组的人口统计学特征相似,但ACUSEAL组当前吸烟者的发生率较高,而Vascu-Guard组充血性心力衰竭患者较多(分别为P = 0.02和0.03)。两组的平均手术颈内动脉直径和平均动脉切开长度相似。ACUSEAL补片的平均止血时间为4.90分钟,而Vascu-Guard为3.09分钟(P = 0.027);然而,两组的平均手术时间相似(ACUSEAL为2.09小时,Vascu-Guard为2.16小时,P = 0.669)。Vascu-Guard组颈部血肿再次探查的发生率较高;分别为6.12%和1.03%(P = 0.1183)。ACUSEAL补片围手术期同侧神经事件的发生率为3.09%,而Vascu-Guard补片为1.02%(P = 0.368)。平均随访期为15个月。ACUSEAL补片在1年、2年和3年时≥70%颈动脉再狭窄的无复发生存率分别为100%、100%和100%,而Vascu-Guard补片分别为100%、98%和98%(P = 0.2478)。ACUSEAL组在1年、2年和3年时同侧无卒中率为96%,Vascu-Guard补片为99%。
虽然使用ACUSEAL与Vascu-Guard进行CEA补片在止血时间上有所不同,但心包补片组颈部血肿再次探查的频率更高;然而,只有1例患者有记录的缝线出血,手术再次探查率不太可能与补片相关。两组在围手术期/晚期神经事件和晚期再狭窄方面没有显著差异。