Mandeville Yannick, Canovai Emilio, Diebels Ian, Suy Raphael, De Vleeschauwer Philippe
Department of Vascular Surgery, Heilig-Hartziekenhuis, Lier, Belgium.
Department of Vascular Surgery, Heilig-Hartziekenhuis, Lier, Belgium.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2015 Nov;29(8):1589-97. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2015.05.025. Epub 2015 Jul 14.
Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the gold standard for treatment of carotid artery stenosis. CEA can be challenging, even technically impossible. Prosthetic carotid bypass grafting is a proven and safe alternative when CEA is hazardous. An alternative technique that is prosthetic carotid bifurcation resection and interposition of a polytetrafluorethylene graft (BRIG) is described in this article.
In our Department of Vascular Surgery, between January 2007 and October 2014, 103 BRIG procedures were performed. The outcome of conventional CEA and patients treated by the BRIG procedure were compared. Within the same period of time 50 CEA procedures (32.7%) were performed. Morbidity, mortality, and postoperative restenosis were compared.
The 30-day mortality was 1% for the BRIG group and 0% in the CEA group (P value, 0.4839). The 30-day stroke rate was 1.9% for the BRIG group and 0% in the CEA group (P value, 0.3222). One patient died in the early postoperative period from acute myocardial infarction. A total of 13 (8.5%) patients died during follow-up, none of which were surgery related. Median follow-up was 29.1 months. There was a statistically higher restenosis rate in the CEA group compared with the BRIG group (16.0% vs. 1.9%, P value, 0.0053). Other complications were comparable. Mean operating and clamping time were significantly shorter in the BRIG group.
BRIG appears to be a safe and feasible surgical alternative to CEA. The technique allows for shorter operating time, shorter clamping time, and appears to result in lower restenosis rates. Complication rates seem to be comparable to CEA. Prospective, randomized controlled trials on this topic are needed. To perform bilateral procedures, a bifurcation graft should be created to revascularize both the internal and external carotid artery.
颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)是治疗颈动脉狭窄的金标准。CEA可能具有挑战性,甚至在技术上是不可能的。当CEA具有危险性时,人工血管颈动脉旁路移植术是一种经过验证的安全替代方法。本文描述了一种替代技术,即人工血管颈动脉分叉切除并置入聚四氟乙烯移植物(BRIG)。
在我们血管外科,2007年1月至2014年10月期间,进行了103例BRIG手术。比较了传统CEA和接受BRIG手术患者的结果。在同一时期进行了50例CEA手术(32.7%)。比较了发病率、死亡率和术后再狭窄情况。
BRIG组30天死亡率为1%;CEA组为0%(P值,0.4839)。BRIG组30天卒中率为1.9%;CEA组为0%(P值,0.3222)。1例患者术后早期死于急性心肌梗死。共有13例(8.5%)患者在随访期间死亡,均与手术无关。中位随访时间为29.1个月。与BRIG组相比,CEA组的再狭窄率在统计学上更高(16.0%对1.9%,P值,0.0053)。其他并发症相当。BRIG组的平均手术时间和夹闭时间明显更短。
BRIG似乎是一种安全可行的CEA手术替代方法。该技术手术时间更短、夹闭时间更短,且似乎导致更低的再狭窄率。并发症发生率似乎与CEA相当。需要对此主题进行前瞻性、随机对照试验。要进行双侧手术,应制作一个分叉移植物以使颈内动脉和颈外动脉都重新血管化。