...
首页> 外文期刊>Medical science monitor : >Safety of embolic protection device-assisted and unprotected intravascular ultrasound in evaluating carotid artery atherosclerotic lesions
【24h】

Safety of embolic protection device-assisted and unprotected intravascular ultrasound in evaluating carotid artery atherosclerotic lesions

机译:栓塞保护器辅助和非保护性血管内超声在评估颈动脉粥样硬化病变中的安全性

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background:Significant atherosclerotic stenosis of internal carotid artery (ICA) origin is common (5–10% at ≥60 years). Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) enables high-resolution (120 μm) plaque imaging, and IVUS-elucidated features of the coronary plaque were recently shown to be associated with its symptomatic rupture/thrombosis risk. Safety of the significant carotid plaque IVUS imaging in a large unselected population is unknown.Material/Methods:We prospectively evaluated the safety of embolic protection device (EPD)-assisted vs. unprotected ICA-IVUS in a series of consecutive subjects with ≥50% ICA stenosis referred for carotid artery stenting (CAS), including 104 asymptomatic (aS) and 187 symptomatic (S) subjects (age 47–83 y, 187 men). EPD use was optional for IVUS, but mandatory for CAS.Results:Evaluation was performed of 107 ICAs (36.8%) without EPD and 184 with EPD. Lesions imaged under EPD were overall more severe (peak-systolic velocity 2.97±0.08 vs. 2.20±0.08m/s, end-diastolic velocity 1.0±0.04 vs. 0.7±0.03 m/s, stenosis severity of 85.7±0.5% vs. 77.7±0.6% by catheter angiography; mean ±SEM; p0.01 for all comparisons) and more frequently S (50.0% vs. 34.6%, p=0.01). No ICA perforation or dissection, and no major stroke or death occurred. There was no IVUS-triggered cerebral embolization. In the procedures of (i) unprotected IVUS and no CAS, (ii) unprotected IVUS followed by CAS (filters – 39, flow reversal/blockade – 3), (iii) EPD-protected (filters – 135, flow reversal/blockade – 48) IVUS+CAS, TIA occurred in 1.5% vs. 4.8% vs. 2.7%, respectively, and minor stroke in 0% vs. 2.4% vs. 2.1%, respectively. EPD intolerance (on-filter ICA spasm or flow reversal/blockade intolerance) occurred in 9/225 (4.0%). IVUS increased the procedure duration by 7.27±0.19 min.Conclusions:Carotid IVUS is safe and, for the less severe lesions in particular, it may not require mandatory EPD use. High-risk lesions can be safely evaluated with IVUS under flow reversal/blockade.
机译:背景:颈内动脉(ICA)的严重动脉粥样硬化狭窄是常见的(≥60岁时为5–10%)。血管内超声(IVUS)可实现高分辨率(120μm)斑块成像,最近显示IVUS阐明的冠状斑块特征与其症状性破裂/血栓形成风险相关。材料/方法:我们在一系列≥50%的连续受试者中前瞻性评估了栓塞保护装置(EPD)辅助与未保护的ICA-IVUS的安全性。 ICA狭窄指的是颈动脉支架置入术(CAS),包括104名无症状(aS)和187名有症状(S)的受试者(年龄47-83岁,187名男性)。对于IVUS,EPD的使用是可选的,但对于CAS则是强制性的。结果:对没有EPD的107 ICA(36.8%)和有EPD的184进行了评估。在EPD下成像的病变总体更为严重(峰值收缩速度2.97±0.08 vs.2.20±0.08m / s,舒张末期速度1.0±0.04 vs.0.7±0.03 m / s,狭窄严重度为85.7±0.5%vs.通过导管血管造影检查为77.7±0.6%;平均值为±SEM;所有比较均p <0.01),更常见的是S(50.0%比34.6%,p = 0.01)。没有ICA穿孔或解剖,也没有发生中风或死亡。没有IVUS触发的脑栓塞。在(i)未受保护的IVUS和无CAS的程序中,(ii)未受保护的IVUS,然后是CAS(过滤器– 39,流量逆转/封锁– 3),(iii)EPD保护(过滤器– 135,流量逆转/封锁– 48)IVUS + CAS,TIA发生率分别为1.5%,4.8%和2.7%,轻微卒中分别为0%,2.4%和2.1%。 EPD不耐受(过滤器ICA痉挛或逆流/阻塞不耐受)发生在​​9/225(4.0%)。 IVUS使手术时间延长了7.27±0.19分钟。结论:颈动脉IVUS是安全的,尤其是对于不太严重的病变,可能不需要强制性EPD使用。 IVUS可在血流逆转/阻断下安全评估高危病变。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号