Suppr超能文献

基于斑块易损性的治疗策略及颈内动脉狭窄的治疗风险评估

Treatment Strategy Based on Plaque Vulnerability and the Treatment Risk Evaluation for Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis.

作者信息

Ito Yoshiro, Tsuruta Wataro, Nakai Yasunobu, Takigawa Tomoji, Marushima Aiki, Masumoto Tomohiko, Matsumaru Yuji, Ishikawa Eiichi, Matsumura Akira

机构信息

Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba.

Department of Neurosurgery, Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital.

出版信息

Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2018 May 15;58(5):191-198. doi: 10.2176/nmc.oa.2017-0228. Epub 2018 Mar 3.

Abstract

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are not appropriate treatment procedure for internal carotid artery stenosis (ICAS) in some patients. The importance of plaque vulnerability and the treatment risk evaluation has been reported. We analyzed whether treatment selection contributes to the outcome. We retrospectively examined 121 patients who underwent CEA or CAS. Treatment was selected based on plaque vulnerability and the treatment risk evaluation. We selected CAS for patients with stable plaques and CEA for patients with unstable plaques, and considered the other treatment for high-risk patients. The patients were classified as the stable plaque (Stable: n = 42), the unstable plaque and CEA low risk (Unstable/Low: n = 30), and the CEA high-risk (Unstable/High: n = 49). Frequency of perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, death, and systemic complications was examined. CEA and CAS were performed in 35 and 86 patients, respectively. One patient (2.9%) had a stroke in CEA and five patients (5.8%) in CAS (P = 0.50). Systemic complications were observed in two patients (5.7%) in CEA and six (7.1%) in CAS (P = 0.80). There were no differences in stroke (Stable; 2.4%, Unstable/Low; 3.2%, and Unstable/High; 8.2%) and systemic complications (Stable; 9.5%, Unstable/Low; 3.3%, and Unstable/High; 6.1%) among three groups (P = 0.44 and P = 0.59, respectively). The treatment selection based on plaque vulnerability and the treatment risk evaluation could provide good treatment outcome for high-risk patients. It is ideal to select an appropriate treatment for ICAS by one neurovascular team.

摘要

对于某些患者而言,颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)和颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)并非治疗颈内动脉狭窄(ICAS)的合适方法。已有报道指出斑块易损性和治疗风险评估的重要性。我们分析了治疗选择是否会对治疗结果产生影响。我们回顾性研究了121例行CEA或CAS的患者。治疗方案是根据斑块易损性和治疗风险评估来选择的。对于斑块稳定的患者我们选择CAS,对于斑块不稳定的患者选择CEA,而对于高危患者则考虑采用另一种治疗方法。患者被分为稳定斑块组(稳定组:n = 42)、不稳定斑块且CEA低风险组(不稳定/低风险组:n = 30)和CEA高风险组(不稳定/高风险组:n = 49)。我们检查了围手术期卒中、心肌梗死、死亡及全身并发症的发生率。分别有35例和86例患者接受了CEA和CAS。CEA组有1例患者(2.9%)发生卒中,CAS组有5例患者(5.8%)发生卒中(P = 0.50)。CEA组有2例患者(5.7%)出现全身并发症,CAS组有6例患者(7.1%)出现全身并发症(P = 0.80)。三组之间在卒中发生率(稳定组;2.4%,不稳定/低风险组;3.2%,不稳定/高风险组;8.2%)和全身并发症发生率(稳定组;9.5%,不稳定/低风险组;3.3%,不稳定/高风险组;6.1%)方面均无差异(P分别为0.44和0.59)。基于斑块易损性和治疗风险评估进行治疗选择可为高危患者带来良好的治疗效果。由一个神经血管团队为ICAS选择合适的治疗方法是理想的。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验