Department of Neurosurgery, University of California San Francisco (L.S.).
Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (W.B.).
Stroke. 2024 Dec;55(12):2921-2931. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.035675. Epub 2024 Oct 11.
Historically, the management of carotid artery disease has primarily focused on the degree of stenosis as the main indicator for assessing stroke etiology, risk, and need for intervention. However, accumulating evidence suggests that structural and biological features within the arterial wall, such as intraplaque hemorrhage, may have superior diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic values. Under current guidelines, unless an atheroma results in ≥50% stenosis, it is not considered the cause of a cerebrovascular event. This results in extensive and often unproductive diagnostic workup, prescription of ineffective medical therapy, and preclusion of patients from receiving revascularization procedures that have been shown to prevent recurrent cerebrovascular events in cases of ≥50% stenosis. A subset of embolic strokes of undetermined source, which account for up to 25% of all ischemic cerebrovascular events, are thought to be due to thromboembolic phenomena from undiagnosed plaque disruptions in nonstenotic arteries (<50% stenosis). Recently, it has been proposed to reclassify this subgroup of patients as symptomatic nonstenotic carotid if the carotid plaque ipsilateral to the cerebrovascular event presents with high-risk features including intraplaque hemorrhage, lipid-rich necrotic core, thinning/rupture of the fibrous cap, and ulceration. In this review, we first provide a historical overview of the chain of events and circumstances that resulted in the present management of carotid artery disease. Second, we embed the contemporary biomarkers of plaque vulnerability in a modern mechanistic paradigm of carotid plaque disruption and thromboembolization. Third, we review the clinically available imaging tools to detect these biomarkers, and how their use has started to shed light on the prevalence and natural history of this underdiagnosed condition. Fourth, we review recent clinical studies employing a contemporary definition of symptomatic nonstenotic carotid and discuss targeted treatments for this condition. Finally, we make a case to generate the much-needed high-level evidence to align the clinical management of patients with symptomatic nonstenotic carotid with a contemporary understanding of plaque disruption and thromboembolization.
从历史上看,颈动脉疾病的管理主要侧重于狭窄程度作为评估中风病因、风险和干预需求的主要指标。然而,越来越多的证据表明,动脉壁内的结构和生物学特征,如斑块内出血,可能具有更好的诊断、预后和治疗价值。根据现行指南,如果动脉粥样硬化导致的狭窄程度小于 50%,则不会被认为是导致脑血管事件的原因。这导致了广泛且往往无效的诊断检查、无效的药物治疗处方,并排除了那些已经证明可以预防≥50%狭窄患者再次发生脑血管事件的血管重建手术。高达 25%的所有缺血性脑血管事件的不明原因栓塞性中风,被认为是由于非狭窄动脉中未诊断的斑块破裂引起的血栓栓塞现象(<50%狭窄)。最近,有人提出,如果与脑血管事件同侧的颈动脉斑块具有高风险特征,包括斑块内出血、富含脂质的坏死核心、纤维帽变薄/破裂和溃疡,则将这组患者重新归类为有症状的非狭窄性颈动脉。在这篇综述中,我们首先提供了导致目前颈动脉疾病管理的历史概述。其次,我们将斑块易损性的当代生物标志物嵌入颈动脉斑块破裂和血栓形成的现代机制范例中。第三,我们回顾了目前可用于检测这些生物标志物的成像工具,以及它们的使用如何开始揭示这种未被充分诊断的疾病的普遍性和自然史。第四,我们回顾了最近使用有症状的非狭窄性颈动脉的当代定义的临床研究,并讨论了针对这种疾病的靶向治疗。最后,我们提出了一个理由,即需要产生急需的高水平证据,使有症状的非狭窄性颈动脉患者的临床管理与对斑块破裂和血栓形成的现代理解保持一致。