Kang Jihee, Woo Shin-Young, Yang Shin-Seok, Park Yang-Jin, Kim Dong-Ik, Jeon Pyoung, Kim Gyeong-Moon, Kim Young-Wook
Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Inha University Hospital, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ann Surg Treat Res. 2022 Aug;103(2):112-118. doi: 10.4174/astr.2022.103.2.112. Epub 2022 Aug 5.
Exposure to ionizing radiation over the head and neck accelerates atherosclerotic changes in the carotid arteries. Owing to the characteristics of radiation-induced carotid stenosis (RICS), the results regarding the optimal revascularization method for RICS vary. This study compared treatment outcomes between carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) in RICS.
This was a single-center retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent CEA or CAS for carotid stenosis. RICS was defined as carotid stenosis (>50%) with the prior neck irradiation for cancer treatment on either side. For the analyses, demographics, comorbid conditions, carotid lesion characteristics based on imaging studies, surgical complications, neurologic outcomes, and mortality during the follow-up period were reviewed. To compare CEA and CAS results in RICS, a 1:1 propensity score matching was applied.
Between November 1994 and June 2021, 43 patients with RICS and 2,407 patients with non-RICS underwent carotid revascularization with CEA or CAS. RICS had fewer atherosclerotic risk factors and more frequent severe carotid stenosis and contralateral carotid occlusions than non-RICS. CAS was more commonly performed than CEA (22.9% 77.1%) for RICS due to more frequent unfavorable carotid anatomy (0 16.2%). Procedure-related complications were more common in the CEA than in the CAS. However, there was no significant difference in neurologic outcomes and restenosis rates between CEA and CAS in RICS.
Considering its lesion characteristics and cumulative incidence, RICS requires more attention than non-RICS. Although CAS has broader indications for RICS, CEA has shown acceptable results if selectively performed.
头颈部暴露于电离辐射会加速颈动脉的动脉粥样硬化改变。由于辐射诱导的颈动脉狭窄(RICS)的特点,关于RICS最佳血运重建方法的结果各不相同。本研究比较了RICS患者行颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)和颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)的治疗效果。
这是一项对因颈动脉狭窄接受CEA或CAS治疗的连续患者进行的单中心回顾性研究。RICS定义为因癌症治疗曾接受过颈部两侧放疗且颈动脉狭窄(>50%)。分析时,回顾了人口统计学、合并症、基于影像学研究的颈动脉病变特征、手术并发症、神经学结果以及随访期间的死亡率。为比较RICS患者中CEA和CAS的结果,采用了1:1倾向评分匹配。
1994年11月至2021年6月,43例RICS患者和2407例非RICS患者接受了CEA或CAS颈动脉血运重建术。与非RICS患者相比,RICS患者的动脉粥样硬化危险因素较少,严重颈动脉狭窄和对侧颈动脉闭塞更为常见。由于不利的颈动脉解剖结构更常见(0对16.2%),RICS患者中CAS的实施比CEA更普遍(22.9%对77.1%)。与手术相关的并发症在CEA中比在CAS中更常见。然而,RICS患者中CEA和CAS在神经学结果和再狭窄率方面没有显著差异。
考虑到其病变特征和累积发生率,RICS比非RICS需要更多关注。虽然CAS对RICS有更广泛的适应证,但如果选择性地进行,CEA也显示出可接受的结果。