Raptis Anastasios, Tasso Paola, Batzalexis Konstantinos, Gallo Diego, Xenos Michalis, Morbiducci Umberto, Giannoukas Athanasios
Laboratory for Vascular Simulations, Institute of Vascular Diseases, Larissa, Greece.
PoliTo(BIO)Med Lab, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Comput Biol Med. 2022 Jan;140:105072. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.105072. Epub 2021 Nov 26.
Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the first-line treatment option of symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis, while stenting (CAS) is reserved for selected patients at high surgical risk. Here, we compare the vascular remodeling process in CEA- and CAS-treated patients with respect to morphological and hemodynamic features, because of their possible engagement in carotid atherosclerosis.
Twelve (12) patients were included, half with patched CEA and half with CAS. Pre- and post-operative 3D image-based models of the carotid bifurcation were anatomically characterized in terms of flare, tortuosity, and curvature. Individual computational fluid dynamics simulations allowed to quantify the postoperative hemodynamic milieu in terms of (1) wall shear stress and (2) helical flow.
Carotid flare increased in all cases, but a more marked increase emerged after CEA compared to CAS. Tortuosity and curvature increased after CEA but decreased after CAS. CEA patients presented with significantly higher postoperative tortuosity than CAS patients. CEA was associated with a worse (non-statistically significant) score in all flow disturbance indicators vs. CAS.
The increased flare and tortuosity of the carotid bifurcation after CEA vs. CAS is a marked difference in the vascular remodeling process between the two modalities. CAS seems to induce a less pro-restenosis hemodynamic environment compared to CEA. The emerged differences stimulate further analysis on a larger cohort with long-term outcomes, to shed light on the clinical impact of the observations.
颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)仍是有症状和无症状颈动脉狭窄的一线治疗选择,而支架置入术(CAS)则用于手术风险高的特定患者。在此,我们比较接受CEA和CAS治疗患者的血管重塑过程的形态学和血流动力学特征,因为它们可能与颈动脉粥样硬化有关。
纳入12例患者,其中一半接受补片CEA治疗,另一半接受CAS治疗。基于术前和术后3D图像的颈动脉分叉模型,从扩张度、迂曲度和曲率方面进行解剖学特征分析。通过个体计算流体动力学模拟,从(1)壁面剪应力和(2)螺旋流方面量化术后血流动力学环境。
所有病例的颈动脉扩张度均增加,但与CAS相比,CEA后扩张度增加更为明显。CEA后迂曲度和曲率增加,而CAS后则降低。CEA患者术后迂曲度显著高于CAS患者。与CAS相比,CEA在所有血流紊乱指标方面的评分更差(无统计学意义)。
与CAS相比,CEA后颈动脉分叉的扩张度和迂曲度增加是两种治疗方式血管重塑过程中的显著差异。与CEA相比,CAS似乎诱导了一个不利于再狭窄的血流动力学环境。这些差异促使对更大队列的长期结果进行进一步分析,以阐明这些观察结果的临床影响。