内膜剥脱联合腔内技术治疗慢性症状性长段颈内动脉闭塞的疗效分析

吴斐1,尚文煊2,王兵1

(1.郑州大学第五附属医院 血管外科,河南 郑州 450052;2.郑州人民医院 血管外科,河南 郑州 450052)

摘 要 背景与目的:对于慢性症状性长段颈内动脉闭塞(ICAO),内膜剥脱术(CEA)与腔内介入手术均有各自的局限性,但两者联合使用的复合手术治疗的效果研究仍较少。因此,本研究探讨CEA 联合腔内技术治疗慢性症状性ICAO 的安全性和有效性。方法:回顾性分析2017年3月—2019年6月我科37 例行复合手术治疗的长段慢性ICAO(至少累及岩段及以上)患者临床资料。所有患者闭塞起始于颈段(C1 段),闭塞远端位于海绵窦段(C4 段)及以下者共20 例(近端组),闭塞远端位于床突段(C5 段)及以上者17 例(远端组)。分析患者手术前后临床症状的变化、手术前后改良Rankin 量表(mRS)及术后3~6 个月复查CTA 情况。结果:37 例患者均接受复合手术治疗,其中30 例成功开通闭塞段血管,手术成功率为81.1%。近端组的总体开通率为95.0%(19/20),其中C2 段、C3 段开通率均为100%,C4 段开通率为87.5%(7/8);远端组的总体开通率为64.7%(11/17),其中C5 段开通率为66.7%(6/9),C6 段开通率为57.1%(4/7),C7 段开通率为100%(1/1)。近端组总体开通率高于远端组(P=0.033)。开通患者的临床症状较术前不同程度的减轻,术后复查的CTA 显示颈内动脉通畅,术后1 周复查PWI 显示颅内灌注血流动力学指标均较术前明显改善。30 例开通患者获随访6~17 个月,靶血管通畅率为90.0%(27/30),其中近端组94.7%(18/19),远端组为81.8%(9/11),两组差异无统计学意义(P=0.543);术后6 个月患者mRS 评分较术前明显好转(t=6.238,P<0.01)。结论:CEA 联合腔内技术治疗慢性症状性ICAO 是一种安全、可行的治疗方法,且颈内动脉闭塞远端至海绵窦段及以下的患者其开通成功率较高。

关键词 动脉闭塞性疾病;颈动脉;颈动脉内膜切除术;血管内操作

通常认为闭塞时间超过4 周的称为慢性颈内动脉闭塞(internal carotid artery occlusion,ICAO),颈内动脉闭塞发生率在有症状(脑缺血或视网膜缺血)颈动脉狭窄的人群中约占15%[1]。即使在定期接受最佳药物治疗且危险因素控制良好的患者中,慢性颈内动脉闭塞的患者其发生同侧脑灌注受损而引起急性脑缺血事件的风险为6%~20%[2]。一些研究证实了血管再通治疗,其成功的再通重建了正常的颅内灌注,减轻了临床症状,恢复了神经认知功能[3],然而,慢性的ICAO的再通仍有技术难度[4]。而复合手术是将内膜剥脱(CEA)联合腔内技术开通的颈内动脉,但对于复合手术治疗慢性ICAO的效果研究较少[5],本文初步探讨闭塞部位对手术开通结果的影响。

1 资料与方法

1.1 一般资料

对我科2017年3月—2019年6月复合手术治疗的慢性症状性颈内动脉闭塞患者临床资料进行回顾性分析,根据纳入及排除标准进行筛选病例,本研究共纳入符合条件的病例37例。一般资料见表1。对所有入选的37例患者以海绵窦段为界将其分组,闭塞起始于颈段,闭塞远端位于海绵窦段及以下者共20例患者入选近端组,闭塞起始于颈段,闭塞远端位于床突段及以上者共17例患者入选远端组[6]

表1 两组患者的一般资料[n(%)]
Table 1 General data of two groups[n(%)]

基本资料近端组(n=20) 远端组(n=17)P年龄62.9±6.963.8±4.70.788男性12(60.0)10(58.8)0..942原发性高血压13(65.0)8(47.1)0.2722 型糖尿病10(50.0)9(52.9)0.858高脂血症7(35.0)6(35.3)0.985冠心病6(30.0)2(11.8)0.179心房颤动4(20.0)1(5.9)0.211既往卒中8(40.0)7(41.2)0.492长期吸烟史6(30.0)9(52.9)0.157

纳入标准:⑴患者因同侧短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)或慢性颈动脉闭塞经积极治疗但仍发生脑梗死而入院;⑵患者为慢性颈动脉闭塞,定义为颈动脉超声或CTA或MRA观察血管横断面为100%闭塞;⑶CT灌注(CTP)扫描发现同侧大脑半球灌注异常(脑血流量减少,脑血容量减少,平均通过时间增加),或在术前DSA显示低灌注;⑷闭塞时间≥7 d。排除标准:⑴无症状的慢性颈动脉闭塞;⑵已知对造影剂、肝素或麻醉剂过敏或禁忌证;⑶影像学检查提示脑梗死后呈出血性转化;⑷非闭塞性颈内动脉引起的新发脑梗死或严重的既往脑梗死;⑸严重感染、低血容量或全身性低血压,或闭塞节段严重钙化或严重扭曲[7]

1.2 手术方法

所有手术均全身麻醉下进行,且在TCD的检测下进行,术中严格控制血压 (术中成功开通前血压不应低于患者术前基础血压)。取颈部胸锁乳突肌内侧缘斜行切口,保护迷走、舌下神经,分别游离颈总动脉、颈外动脉、甲状腺上动脉和颈内动脉。在全身肝素化后,分别过带过钳控制以上各血管,纵行切开颈总动脉及颈内动脉,完整剥脱颈内动脉起始段内膜及斑块。经肝素盐水反复冲洗后缝合切口,排气后依次开放颈外、颈总动脉。经颈总动脉近心端穿刺,顺行置入6 F动脉鞘,经鞘造影颈外动脉血流通畅,颈内动脉近心端通畅,远端闭塞。经鞘引入导引导管,经导引导管引入神经微导管、微导丝,谨慎操作通过闭塞段,造影明确导管位于真腔血管内。送入交换微导丝,引入Fogarty导管试行取栓,取栓后若返流新鲜血液,证实再通成功,造影后若无狭窄则依次缝合。取栓后远端返流不佳者,超选择造影明确导丝位于血管真腔,明确闭塞长度及远端血管情况,引入球囊后由远端到近端扩张颈内动脉颅内闭塞段。造影复查颈内动脉,若存在限流性狭窄时,则使用普通球囊在支架内进行后扩张。

1.3 观察指标及随访

术后3 个月内进行口服双抗,之后长期单抗血小板聚集治疗[8]。术后1 周复查磁共振灌注加权成像(PWI),记录血流动力学指标:脑血流量(CBF)、达峰时间(TTP)、平均通过时间(MTT)。围手术期主要观察指标包括局部并发症和神经系统症状以及其他不良事件;不良事件包括高灌注综合征、手术侧的卒中、出血和死亡。术后对所有患者进行随访,记录mRS评分,必要时行CTA或DSA检查。

1.4 统计学处理

所有收集的数据均采用SPSS 25.0统计软件进行统计分析,连续变量用均值±标准差(±s)表示,非正态连续变量用中位数(四分位数)表示,分类变量用例数(百分比)[n(%)]表示。数据正态分布时,用配对t检验确认两组间有显著性差异。P<0.05为具有统计学意义。

2 结果

2.1 手术及术后情况

37 例慢性颈内动脉长段闭塞患者均接受复合手术治疗,其中30 例成功开通闭塞段血管,手术成功率为81.1%。开通患者的临床症状较术前不同程度的减轻;术后复查的CTA显示颈内动脉通畅,术后1 周复查PWI显示颅内灌注血流动力学指标(CBF、TTP、MTT)均较术前明显改善(图1-2)。近端组患者的总体开通率为95.0%(19/20),其中C2段(岩段)、C3段(破裂孔段)开通率均为100%,C4段(海绵窦段)开通率为87.5%(7/8);远端组患者的总体开通率为64.7%(11/17),其中C5段(床突段)开通率为66.7%(6/9),C6段(眼段)开通率为57.1%(4/7),C7段(交通段)开通率为100%(1/1)。近端组总体开通率高于远端组(P=0.033)(表2)。所有手术患者围手术期均未发生严重并发症或死亡。

图1 PWI 图像 A:术前右侧大脑TTP 明显延长;B:术后两侧大脑半球TTP 基本相同;C:术前CBF 明显下降;D:术后CBF 较术前明显好转
Figure 1 PWI images A:Obvious prolonged TTPof the right hemisphere before operation;B:Similar TTP of both hemispheres after operation;C:Obvious decreased CBF before operation;D:Significantly improved postoperative CBF

图2 治疗相关图片 A:术前 CTA 提示右侧颈内动脉长段闭塞;B;CEA 术中剥脱的斑块;C:颈总动脉置入鞘管;D-E:导丝、导管配合逐段开通;F-G:支架植入后造影颈内动脉全程通畅
Figure 2 Pictures related to treatment A:Preoperative CTA showeing a long segmental occlusion of the right internal carotid artery;B:Plaque stripped during CEA operation;C:Placement of sheath in the common carotid artery;D-E:Recanalization assisted by guide wire and catheter;F-G:Angiography showing a patent internal carotid artery after stent implantation

表2 两组患者靶血管的手术开通情况(n
Table 2 The patency of target vessels in the two groups(n)

组别端组开通未开通总计P近191200.033远端组11617总计30737

2.2 术后随访情况

30例开通患者获得随访,随访时间6~17个月,平均(11±1.4)个月。近端组患者不良事件发生2例,均为TIA症状发作,未出现卒中、出血等症状;远端组患者不良事件发生1例,为不稳定心绞痛发作。术后12个月随访开通患者的靶血管通畅率为27/30(90.0%),其中近端组患者1例术后随访期间发生再闭塞,通畅率94.7%(18/19);远端组患者2例术后随访期间发生再闭塞,通畅率为81.8%(9/11)。两组患者通畅率差异无统计学意义(P=0.543)(表3)。对mRS评分自身对照进行配对t检验,结果术前术后差异具有统计学意义(t=6.238,P<0.01)。

表3 两组患者靶血管术后12 个月通畅率(n
Table 3 The patency rates of the target vessels in the two groups of patients on 12 months after operation(n)

组别通畅再闭塞总计P近端组181190.537远端组9211总计27330

3 讨论

慢性ICAO引起脑卒中的主要原因是颈内动脉闭塞远端的血栓形成或斑块脱落,此外、TIA可以由脑血流量的灌注不足而引起;若侧支循环存在,脑灌注代偿良好,慢性ICAO也可能表现无症状,其年卒中的发生率低[9-10]。对于慢性ICAO的患者手术,既往观点认为大脑血管已通过代偿建立有效的侧支循环,不建议手术干预重建颈动脉血流。单纯药物治疗仅应用于无症状患者和卒中的二级预防[11]。手术治疗方式众多尚无统一标准,主要有颅内外血管搭桥、CEA、腔内介入手术以及复合手术[12]。两项多中心、前瞻性的颅内-颅外旁路搭桥试验(EC-IC)和北美颈动脉调查实验(COSS)研究[13-14]发现接受颅内外搭桥手术患者的中远期(2年)脑卒中发生率与单纯接受规范化药物治疗的患者相比没有明显降低(22.7% vs.21.0%),而且手术创伤大,并发症多。颈动脉内膜剥脱术可以直接切除颈内动脉起始段动脉硬化的斑块,联合应用Fogarty导管拉栓可以开通颈内动脉起始段闭塞和岩骨段闭塞,其手术效果良好[15];但对于闭塞段位于破裂孔段以上的长段闭塞的患者,单纯颈内动脉剥脱术效果欠佳[16]。经股动脉穿刺介入手术创伤小,成功率高,术中应用近端栓塞保护装置可有效降低并发症,有文献[17]报道单纯应用腔内介入手术开通颈内动脉闭塞开通率达到73%,较单纯CEA手术疗效好。但是对于斑块钙化严重、闭塞段较长的颈内动脉闭塞,术中难以控制导丝通过闭塞段到达远端真腔,相对的增加手术时间,使患者出现并发症几率增加,故腔内介入手术在颈内动脉闭塞再通上仍有一定的局限性[18]

自2013年Shih等[19]首次报道了3例应用复合手术治疗症状性颈内动脉闭塞,其中1例患者闭塞远端位于C6眼动脉段而开通失败;余2例患者均取得成功,术中未使用脑保护装置,无并发症出现,随访6个月后脑缺血症状未再复发;首次证实复合手术对于慢性症状性颈内动脉闭塞患者的靶血管开通安全有效。2017年Bozzay等[20]报道了6例复合手术治疗颈内动脉串联病变,其研究结果显示安全可行。2019年《慢性颈内动脉闭塞再通治疗中国专家共识》[6]推荐意见中:对术前评估原始闭塞段在颈内动脉起始段的慢性颈内动脉闭塞的患者进行手术,均应安排在复合手术室内进行,复合手术可应用于治疗闭塞段自起始段至岩骨段以上的长节段闭塞患者。本研究的结果与上述结果保持一致,认为复合手术可以作为慢性ICAO治疗的一种新术式,可明显改善患者神经系统功能,提高大脑灌注。

既往有研究[21-24]认为,手术难度大、开通率低是慢性长节段颈内动脉闭塞血管开通的难点,影响颈动脉血运重建的手术成功率和安全性的关键因素是CICAO闭塞远端累及部位。Chen等[25]回顾138例慢性颈动脉闭塞血管内开通的结果显示:闭塞段远端至岩骨段及以下者开通率为93%、闭塞段远端至海绵窦段者开通率为80%、闭塞段远端至床突段者73%、闭塞段远端至眼段者33%、闭塞段远端至交通段及以上者成功率29%。本研究依据闭塞远端位置分为两组,C2 段、C3 段开通率均为100%,C4段开通率为87.5%(7/8),C5 段开通率为66.7%(6/9),C6 段开通率为57.1%(4/7),C7段开通率为100%(1/1)。可以看出,随着闭塞段远端位置的升高,其开通率逐渐下降,其中C7段仅纳入1例患者并成功开通,其开通率有一定的偶然性。依据分组标准,近端组患者的开通率为95.0%,远端组患者的开通率为11/17(64.7%),A 组患者的开通率高于B组患者(95.0% vs. 64.7%),两者差异有统计学意义(P=0.033)。本研究在手术开通率与上述研究相符,同样认为闭塞节段越长,闭塞远端位置越高,手术成功率越低,闭塞远端以海绵窦段为界,海绵窦段及以下部位闭塞的患者开通率高于其以上的患者,可能的原因为:闭塞段长远端位置高的血管迂曲较严重、斑块钙化严重,导丝穿越闭塞段的难度增加,也更难返回真腔。此外闭塞时间也是影响开通的因素之一,闭塞段的长短与闭塞时间存在一定的关系[26],但在临床上很难判断闭塞的具体时间,存在较大偏差,本研究未予以纳入。近端组患者不良事件发生2 例,均为TIA症状发作,未出现卒中、出血等症状;远端组患者不良事件发生1例,为不稳定心绞痛发作。两组患者在随访期间不良事件发生率差异无统计学意义。术后12个月随访开通患者的靶血管通畅率为27/30(90.0%),其中近端组患者1例术后随访期间发生再闭塞,为C4段开通的患者,通畅率18/19(94.7%);远端组患者2例术后随访期间发生再闭塞,通畅率为9/11(81.8%),均为C6段开通的患者。两组患者靶血管中期通畅率差异无统计学意义(P=0.543)。支架内再闭塞的原因可能是在血管内球囊的扩张和支架置入前后损伤血管壁、支架作为异物在体内的炎性反应致使血小板聚集形成血栓及血管受到支架长期的牵拉作用从而导致血管内膜增生。此外,支架再狭窄与术后患者是否规律服用双联抗血小板药物有关[27]

通过本研究,笔者认为严格的术前评估对于患者的筛选同样重要[28],采用血管彩超、CTA、DSA、高分辨磁共振等影像学手段全面细致地评估闭塞血管长度及走形、侧支代偿及远端反流水平、脑组织灌注以及患者是否耐受手术等情况制定严密的手术方案[29]。复合手术治疗慢性症状性颈内动脉闭塞安全、有效,可改善患者神经系统功能,短、中期随访结果满意。对于慢性症状性颈内动脉闭塞远端至海绵窦段及以下的患者复合手术开通率高于闭塞远端位于床突段及以上的患者,但两者中期通畅率无差异。手术开通过程中精准通过闭塞段是手术成功的关键,根据术前影像对始发闭塞处斑块部位进行判断,并结合术中造影情况和探查时导丝的触觉反馈、形态变化来判断是否到达真腔,可以降低相关并发症风险。对于症状性慢性颈内动脉闭塞患者,应该根据患者的一般情况、闭塞远端的位置、闭塞长度、术前检查等综合手段,评估病情选择适宜的手术方式,采取个体化的治疗方案[30]

参考文献

[1]Iwata T,Mori T,Tajiri H,et al.Long-term Angiographic and Clinical Outcome Following Stenting by Flow Reversal Technique for Chronic Occlusions Older Than 3 Months of the Cervical Carotid or Vertebral Artery[J].Neurosurgery,2012,70(1):82-90.doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e31822e074c.

[2]No authors listed.MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial:interim results for symptomatic patients with severe(70-99%)or with mild(0-29%)carotid stenosis.European Carotid Surgery Trialists'Collaborative Group[J].Lancet,1991,337(8752):1235-1243.

[3]Barnett HJ,Taylor DW,Eliasziw M,et al.Benefit of carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic moderate or severe stenosis.North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators[J].N Engl J Med,1998,339(20):1415-1425.doi:10.1056/NEJM199811123392002.

[4]Naylor AR,Ricco JB,de Borst GJ,et al.Editor's Choice -Management of Atherosclerotic Carotid and Vertebral Artery Disease:2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery(ESVS)[J].Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg,2018,55(1):3-81.doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2017.06.021.

[5]Paraskevas KI,Mikhailidis DP,Liapis CD,et al.Internal carotid artery occlusion:association with atherosclerotic disease in other arterial beds and vascular risk factors[J].Angiology,2007,58(3):329-335.doi:10.1177/0003319707301754.

[6]Bouthillier A,van Loveren HR,Keller JT.Segments of the internal carotid artery:a new classification[J].Neurosurgery,1996,38(3):425-432.doi:10.1097/00006123-199603000-00001.

[7]中国医师协会介入医师分会神经介入专业委员会,中华医学会放射学分会介入放射学组,中国卒中学会复合介入神经外科分会,等.慢性颈内动脉闭塞再通治疗中国专家共识[J].中华介入放射学电子杂志,2019,7(1):1-6.doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-5782.2019.01.001.

Professional Committee of Neurointervention,Interventional Physician Branch,Chinese Medical Doctor Association,Interventional Radiology Group,Radiology Branch,Chinese Medical Association,Interventional Neurosurgery Branch,Chinese Society of Stroke,et,al.Chinese expert consensus on recanalization of chronic internal carotid artery occlusion[J].Chinese Journal of Interventional Radiology:Electronic Edition,2019,7(1):1-6.doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-5782.2019.01.001.

[8]Wang Y,Wang Y,Zhao X,et al.Clopidogrel with aspirin in acute minor stroke or transient ischemic attack[J].N Engl J Med,2013,369(1):11-19.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1215340.

[9]Bornstein NM,Norris JW.Benign outcome of carotid occlusion[J].Neurology,1989,39(1):6-8.doi:10.1212/wnl.39.1.6.

[10]Furlan AJ,Whisnant JP,Baker HL Jr.Long-term prognosis after carotid artery occlusion[J].Neurology,1980,30(9):986-988.doi:10.1212/wnl.30.9.986.

[11]Markus HS,Droste DW,Kaps M,et al.Dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin in symptomatic carotid stenosis evaluated using doppler embolic signal detection:the Clopidogrel and Aspirin for Reduction of Emboli in Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis(CARESS)trial[J].Circulationm 2005,111(17):2233-2240.doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000163561.90680.1C.

[12]Shucart WA,Garrido E.Reopening some occluded carotid arteries.Report of four cases[J].J Neurosurg,1976,45(4):442-446.doi:10.3171/jns.1976.45.4.0442.

[13]EC/IC Bypass Study Group.Failure of extracranial-intracranial arterial bypass to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke.Results of an international randomized trial[J].N Engl J Med,1985,313(19):1191-1200.doi:10.1056/NEJM198511073131904.

[14]Powers WJ,Clarke WR,Grubb RL Jr,et al.Extracranial-intracranial bypass surgery for stroke prevention in hemodynamic cerebral ischemia:the Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study randomized trial[J].JAMA,2011,306(18):1983-1992.doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1610.

[15]Hugenholtz H,Elgie RG.Carotid thromboendarterectomy:a reappraisal.Criteria for patient selection[J].J Neurosurg,1980,53(6):776-783.doi:10.3171/jns.1980.53.6.0776.

[16]Jiao L,Song G,Hua Y,et al.Recanalization of extracranial internal carotid artery occlusion A 12-year retrospective study[J].Neural Regen Res,2013,8(23):2204-2206.doi:10.3969/j.issn.1673-5374.2013.23.011.

[17]Kao HL,Lin M,Wang C,et al.Feasibility of Endovascular Recanalization for Symptomatic Cervical Internal Carotid Artery Occlusion[J].J Am Coll Cardiol,2007,49(7):765-771.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2006.11.029.

[18]Grubb RL Jr,Powers WJ,Clarke WR,et al.Surgical results of the Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study[J].J Neurosurg,2013,118(1):25-33.doi:10.3171/2012.9.JNS12551.

[19]Shih YT,Chen WH,Lee WL,et al.Hybrid surgery for symptomatic chronic total occlusion of carotid artery:a technical note[J].Neurosurgery,2013,73(1 Suppl Operative):onsE117-123.doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e31827fca6c.

[20]Bozzay J,Broce M,Mousa AY.Hybrid Treatment of Extracranial Carotid Artery Disease[J].Vasc Endovascular Surg,2017,51(6):373-376.doi:10.1177/1538574417710374.

[21]Namba K,Shojima M,Nemoto S.Wire-probing technique to revascularize subacute or chronic internal carotid artery occlusion[J].Interv Neuroradiol,2012,18(3):288-296.doi:10.1177/159101991201800307.

[22]王梦宇,王兵,吴斐,等.复合手术治疗慢性症状性颈内动脉闭塞[J].中国普通外科杂志,2018,27(12):1614-1619.doi:10.7659/j.issn.1005-6947.2018.12.019.

Wang MY,Wang B,Wu F,et al.Combined operative treatment for chronic symptomatic carotid artery occlusion[J].Chinese Journal of General Surgery,2018,27(12):1614-1619.doi:10.7659/j.issn.1005-6947.2018.12.019.

[23]González García A,Moniche F,Escudero-Martínez I,et al.Clinical Predictors of Hyperperfusion Syndrome Following Carotid Stenting:Results From a National Prospective Multicenter Study[J].JACC Cardiovasc Interv,2019,12(9):873-882.doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2019.01.247.

[24]Writing Group Members,Mozaffarian D,Benjamin EJ,et al.Executive Summary:Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics--2016 Update:A Report From the American Heart Association[J].Circulation,2016,133(4):447-454.doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000366.

[25]Chen YH,Leong WS,Lin MS,et al.Predictors for Successful Endovascular Intervention in Chronic Carotid Artery Total Occlusion[J].JACC Cardiovasc Interv,2016,9(17):1825-1832.doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2016.06.015.

[26]Angelini GD,Wilde P,Salerno TA,et al.Integrated left small thoracotomy and angioplasty for multivessel coronary artery revascularisation[J].Lancet,1996,347(9003):757-758.doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)90107-5.

[27]Hauck EF,Ogilvy CS,Siddiqui AH,et al.Direct endovascular recanalization of chronic carotid occlusion:should we do it? Case report[J].Neurosurgery,2010,67(4):E1152-1159.doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e3181edaf99.

[28]Yasargil MG,Krayenbuhl HA,Jacobson JH 2nd.Microneurosurgical arterial reconstruction[J].Surgery,1970,67(1):221-233.

[29]胡昕涛,王兵,王越,等.内膜剥脱治疗颈动脉残腔综合征的疗效观察[J].中国普通外科杂志,2020,29(6):699-705.doi:10.7659/j.issn.1005-6947.2020.06.010.

Hu XT,Wang B,Wang Y,et al.Efficacy observation of endarterectomy in treatment of carotid artery stump syndrome[J].Chinese Journal of General Surgery,2020,29(6):699-705.doi:10.7659/j.issn.1005-6947.2020.06.010.

[30]Xu B,Li JJ,Yang YJ,et al.A single center investigation of baremetal or drug-eluting stent restenosis from 1633 consecutive Chinese Han ethnic patients[J].Chin Med J,2006,119(7):533-538.

Efficacy analysis of carotid endarterectomy combined with endovascular technique in treatment of long-segment chronic symptomatic internal carotid artery occlusion

WU Fei1,SHANG Wenxuan2,WANG Bing1

(1.Department of Vascular Surgery,the Fifth Affiliated Hospital,Zhengzhou University,Zhengzhou 450052,China;2.Department of Vascular Surgery,People's Hopital of Zhengzhou,Zhengzhou 450052,China)

Abstract Background and Aims:For long-segment chronic symptomatic internal carotid artery occlusion(ICAO),either carotid endarterectomy(CEA)or endovascular surgery has its respective limitations.However,the reports on the efficacy of their combined surgery are still not enough.Therefore,this study was conducted to investigate the safety and effectiveness of CEA combined with endovascular technique in the treatment of chronic symptomatic ICAO.Methods:The clinical data of 37 patients with long-segment chronic ICAO(involving at least the petrous or more distal segments)undergoing combined surgery from March 2017 to June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed.The proximal occlusion lesion located at the cervical segment(C1 segment)in all patients,the distal occlusion lesion extended to the cavernous segment(C4 segment)or more proximal segments in 20 patients(proximal group),and the distal occlusion lesion extended to clinoid segment or more distal segments in 17 patients(distal group).The changes in clinical symptoms,the scores of the modified Rankin scale(mRS)before and after operation as well the CTA reviewed 3 to 6 months after operation of the patients were analyzed.Results:All 37 patients with received combined surgical treatment,of whom,the occluded segment in 30 cases were successfully recanalized,and the surgical success rate was 81.1%.In proximal group,the overall recanalization rate was 95.0%(19/20),in which,the recanalization rate for either C2 or C3 segment was 100%,and for C4 segment was 66.7%(6/9);in distal group,the overall recanalization rate was 64.7%(11/17),in which,the recanalization rate for C5 segment was 66.7%(6/9),C6 segment was 57.1%(4/7)and C7 segment was 100%(1/1).The overall recanalization rate in proximal group was significantly higher than that in distal group(P=0.033).The clinical symptoms were improved to different extents in the recanalized patients,the postoperative CTA demonstrated a patent right internal carotid artery,and the PWI images at 1 week after operation showed that the intracranial perfusion hemodynamic indicators were significantly improved compared with their preoperative conditions.Follow-up was conducted for 6 to 17 months in the 30 recanalized patients,the patency rate of the target vessel was 90.0%(27/30),which was 94.7%(18/19)in proximal group and 81.8%(9/11)in distal group,and the difference was no significant between the two groups(P=0.543).The mRS score of the patients at 6 months after operation was significantly better than that before operation(t=6.238,P<0.01).Conclusion:CEA combined with endovascular technique is a safe and feasible method for the treatment of chronic symptomatic ICAO,and the recanalization rate is higher in patients with distal ICA occlusion at the cavernous more proximal segments.

Key words Arterial Occlusive Diseases;Carotid Arteries;Endarterectomy,Carotid;Endovascular Procedures

中图分类号:R654.3

doi:10.7659/j.issn.1005-6947.2021.06.010

http://dx.doi.org/10.7659/j.issn.1005-6947.2021.06.010

Chinese Journal of General Surgery,2021,30(6):700-706.

基金项目:河南省医学科技攻关计划基金资助项目(2018020242)。

收稿日期:2020-09-09;

修订日期:2020-12-23。

作者简介:吴斐,郑州大学第五附属医院主治医师,主要从事血管外科临床方面的研究。

通信作者:王兵,Email:13703713788@126.com

CLC number:R654.3

(本文编辑 宋涛)

本文引用格式:吴斐,尚文煊,王兵.内膜剥脱联合腔内技术治疗慢性症状性长段颈内动脉闭塞的疗效分析[J].中国普通外科杂志,2021,30(6):700-706.doi:10.7659/j.issn.1005-6947.2021.06.010

Cite this article as:Wu F,Shang WX,Wang B.Efficacy analysis of carotid endarterectomy combined with endovascular technique in treatment of long-segment chronic symptomatic internal carotid artery occlusion[J].Chin J Gen Surg,2021,30(6):700-706.doi:10.7659/j.issn.1005-6947.2021.06.010