Teitelbaum G P, Lefkowitz M A, Giannotta S L
Department of Neurological Surgery, USC School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Surg Neurol. 1998 Oct;50(4):300-11; discussion 311-2. doi: 10.1016/s0090-3019(98)00038-x.
To examine our initial experience in carotid stenting (CS) for the prevention of stroke in patients with high-grade carotid stenoses.
The authors performed 26 CS procedures in 25 carotid vessels in 22 patients over a 15-month period. All carotid stenoses treated, except one, were 70% or greater. Of all CS procedures, 84% were performed for obstructing atherosclerotic plaques. CS was performed in one patient each for carotid dissection and pseudoaneurysms caused by a gunshot wound, post-radiation stenosis, post-carotid endarterectomy (CEA) restenosis, and a flow-obstructing post-CEA intimal flap. Of all patients, 68.2% were symptomatic, with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attacks ipsilateral to the treated carotid artery. In addition, 36.4% of our patients were either hospitalized or required skilled nursing care before CS because of severe neurologic deficits. Using the Sundt CEA-risk classification system, 59.1% of our patients were classified as Grade III and 40.9% were Grade IV pre-CS. All but one patient had either a compelling medical or anatomic reason for endovascular treatment of their carotid disease. We used both Wallstents and Palmaz stents, and all procedures were performed via the transfemoral route. Three procedures were performed in conjunction with detachable platinum coil embolization for multiple carotid pseudoaneurysms, a residual carotid "stump" after previous ICA thrombosis, and an ipsilateral MCA saccular aneurysm.
We had a 96.2% procedural technical success rate. There was one death in our series 3 weeks post-CS attributable to myocardial infarction. Despite a high 30-day combined death, stroke, and ipsilateral blindness rate of 27.3% (6/22 patients), only two ipsilateral strokes directly related to CS occurred (7.7% per procedures performed) from which one patient recovered fully within 5 days. The average follow-up post-CS was 5.9 months (range, 3 weeks-15 months). Of successfully treated vessels, 58.3% have undergone 6-month follow-up vascular imaging, which has revealed a 14.3% rate of occlusion or restenosis greater than 50%. At or beyond 1 month post-CS, 19 of 21 surviving patients (90.5%) were ambulatory, fluent of speech, and independent, and none has thus far suffered a delayed stroke or TIA.
CS seems to be a reasonable alternative to medical management for the treatment of carotid disease in patients deemed to be poor candidates for standard carotid surgery. Longer term follow-up is necessary to assess the durability of carotid revascularization using CS.
探讨我们在颈动脉支架置入术(CS)预防重度颈动脉狭窄患者中风方面的初步经验。
在15个月期间,作者对22例患者的25条颈动脉进行了26次CS手术。除1例患者外,所有接受治疗的颈动脉狭窄均达到或超过70%。在所有CS手术中,84%是针对阻塞性动脉粥样硬化斑块进行的。分别有1例患者因颈动脉夹层、枪伤导致的假性动脉瘤、放疗后狭窄、颈动脉内膜切除术后(CEA)再狭窄以及CEA术后内膜瓣导致的血流阻塞而接受CS手术。所有患者中,68.2%有症状,有同侧颈动脉供血区中风或短暂性脑缺血发作史。此外,36.4%的患者在CS手术前因严重神经功能缺损而住院或需要专业护理。根据Sundt CEA风险分类系统,59.1%的患者在CS手术前被分类为III级,40.9%为IV级。除1例患者外,所有患者均有明确的医学或解剖学原因需要对其颈动脉疾病进行血管内治疗。我们使用了Wallstents和Palmaz支架,所有手术均通过股动脉途径进行。3例手术联合可脱性铂弹簧圈栓塞术,分别用于治疗多发颈动脉假性动脉瘤、颈内动脉血栓形成后的残留颈动脉“残端”以及同侧大脑中动脉囊状动脉瘤。
我们的手术技术成功率为96.2%。本系列中有1例患者在CS术后3周死于心肌梗死。尽管30天内死亡、中风和同侧失明的综合发生率高达27.3%(22例患者中的6例),但仅发生了2例与CS直接相关的同侧中风(每次手术发生率为7.7%),其中1例患者在5天内完全康复。CS术后的平均随访时间为5.9个月(范围:3周 - 15个月)。在成功治疗的血管中,58.3%接受了6个月的随访血管成像,结果显示闭塞或再狭窄率(大于50%)为14.3%。在CS术后1个月或更长时间,21例存活患者中的19例(90.5%)能够行走、言语流畅且生活自理,目前尚无患者发生延迟性中风或短暂性脑缺血发作。
对于被认为不适合标准颈动脉手术的患者,CS似乎是治疗颈动脉疾病的一种合理替代药物治疗的方法。需要进行更长时间的随访以评估使用CS进行颈动脉血运重建的持久性。