Li Jun, Wang Chao, Zou Sili, Liu Yandong, Qu Lefeng
Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Changzheng Hospital Affiliated to the Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Changzheng Hospital Affiliated to the Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
World Neurosurg. 2019 Feb;122:e1416-e1425. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.11.075. Epub 2018 Nov 17.
Internal carotid artery occlusion (ICAO) causes transient ischemic attack and cerebral infarction. ICAO management remains clinically challenging. We discuss a hybrid treatment combining carotid endarterectomy and endovascular intervention (E-I) for patients with nontaper or nonstump lesions of symptomatic ICAO.
We treated 32 patients with consecutive nontaper or nonstump ICAO with neurological symptoms with hybrid treatment or E-I. We analyzed the epidemiology, symptoms, angiographic morphology, technical success rate, and perioperative complications.
Of the 32 patients, 17 were treated with hybrid surgery and 15, E-I. The demographic data and lesion characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. The overall recanalization success rate was 71.9%. The rate for hybrid surgery was better than that for E-I (88.2% vs. 53.3%). The postoperative cerebral hyperperfusion rate showed no difference between the 2 groups (11.8% vs. 6.7%). Ipsilateral cerebral perfusion improved after treatment. The mean transition time and time to peak were greater than normal (normal values, <6 seconds and <8 seconds, respectively). Both increased significantly after treatment (mean transition time, 11.30 seconds vs. 7.25 seconds; time to peak, 19.30 seconds vs. 15.50 seconds). The incidence of perioperative complications from hybrid surgery was less than that with E-I (5.9% vs. 40.0%). Recurrent cerebrovascular events (5.9% vs. 13.3%) and the 3-month modified Rankin scale score (2.76 ± 0.66 vs. 2.93 ± 0.70) did not differ between the 2 groups.
Recanalization of nontaper or nonstump ICAO with hybrid treatment was more successful than that with E-I, with fewer perioperative complications. The carotid endarterectomy procedure enables easier wire crossing across the occlusion and reduces potential technology-related complications by requiring a shorter lesion and fewer dissections and minimizing the effect of calcification.
颈内动脉闭塞(ICAO)可导致短暂性脑缺血发作和脑梗死。ICAO的治疗在临床上仍然具有挑战性。我们讨论一种将颈动脉内膜切除术和血管内介入治疗(E-I)相结合的混合治疗方法,用于治疗有症状的ICAO非锥形或非残端病变患者。
我们对32例连续的有神经症状的非锥形或非残端ICAO患者采用混合治疗或E-I治疗。我们分析了流行病学、症状、血管造影形态、技术成功率和围手术期并发症。
32例患者中,17例接受了混合手术治疗,15例接受了E-I治疗。两组的人口统计学数据和病变特征相似。总体再通成功率为71.9%。混合手术的成功率优于E-I(88.2%对53.3%)。两组术后脑过度灌注率无差异(11.8%对6.7%)。治疗后同侧脑灌注得到改善。平均通过时间和达峰时间均高于正常水平(正常数值分别<6秒和<8秒)。治疗后两者均显著增加(平均通过时间,11.30秒对7.25秒;达峰时间,19.30秒对15.50秒)。混合手术围手术期并发症的发生率低于E-I(5.9%对40.0%)。两组复发性脑血管事件(5.9%对13.3%)和3个月改良Rankin量表评分(2.76±0.66对2.93±0.70)无差异。
采用混合治疗对非锥形或非残端ICAO进行再通比E-I更成功,围手术期并发症更少。颈动脉内膜切除术使导丝更容易穿过闭塞部位,并通过缩短病变长度、减少解剖操作和最小化钙化影响来降低潜在的技术相关并发症。