首页> 外文期刊>Journal of endovascular therapy: an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists >Differential effects of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy on external carotid artery patency.
【24h】

Differential effects of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy on external carotid artery patency.

机译:颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术对颈外动脉通畅的不同作用。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of stent coverage of the external carotid artery (ECA) after carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared to eversion endarterectomy of the ECA after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: The records of 101 CAS and 165 CEA procedures performed over 2 years were reviewed. Duplex velocities and history and physical examinations were taken prior to the procedure, at 1 month, and at 6-month intervals subsequently. CAS was performed by extending the stent across the internal carotid artery (ICA) lesion into the common carotid artery (CCA) thereby covering the ECA. CEA was performed with eversion endarterectomy of the ECA. RESULTS: The mean peak systolic velocities (PSV) in the ICA pre-CAS and pre-CEA were 361 and 352 cm/s, respectively. In terms of CAS, there was a significant increase in ECA velocities versus baseline at 12 (p = 0.009), 18 (p = 0.00001), and 24 (p = 0.005) months. In the CEA group, there was a significant decrease in ECA velocities versus baseline at 1 (p 0.01) and 6 (p in the CAS group and none in the CEA group. No significant differences were noted when comparing preprocedural ICA or ECA velocities. However, at the 1-, 6-, and 12-month intervals, the ECA velocities in the CAS group were significantly higher than in the CEA group (p = 0.03, p = 0.001, and p = 0.0004, respectively). There were no neurological symptoms in any patients during the study period. CONCLUSION: Although progressive stenosis of the ECA is noted during CAS, the ECA usually does not occlude. Furthermore, there are no associated neurological symptoms. Thus, apprehension for progressive ECA occlusion should not be a contraindication to CAS. In addition, concern for ECA coverage should not deter stent extension from the ICA to the CCA during CAS.
机译:目的:确定与颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)后ECA的外翻内膜切除术相比,颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)后覆盖颈外动脉(ECA)的效果。方法:回顾了两年内执行的101例CAS和165例CEA程序的记录。在手术前,1个月和随后的6个月间隔中进行双工速度,病史和体格检查。通过将支架延伸穿过颈内动脉(ICA)病变进入颈总动脉(CCA)从而覆盖ECA来进行CAS。 CEA与ECA外翻内膜切除术一起进行。结果:ICA前CAS和CEA前的平均收缩峰值速度(PSV)分别为361和352 cm / s。就CAS而言,在12个月(p = 0.009),18个月(p = 0.00001)和24个月(p = 0.005)时,ECA速度相对于基线有显着提高。在CEA组中,ECA速度相对于基线分别为1(p 0.01)和6(p(CAS组),而CEA组中没有,与基线相比显着降低。比较术前ICA或ECA速度时,没有发现显着差异。在1、6和12个月的间隔内,CAS组的ECA速度显着高于CEA组(分别为p = 0.03,p = 0.001和p = 0.0004)。结论:研究期间任何患者均出现神经系统症状结论:尽管在CAS期间注意到ECA进行性狭窄,但ECA通常不会闭塞,而且也没有相关的神经系统症状,因此,对进行性ECA闭塞的忧虑不应成为此外,对ECA覆盖的关注不应阻止CAS期间支架从ICA扩展到CCA。

著录项

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