...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of vascular surgery >Contralateral carotid artery occlusion is not a contraindication to carotid endarterectomy even if shunts are not routinely used
【24h】

Contralateral carotid artery occlusion is not a contraindication to carotid endarterectomy even if shunts are not routinely used

机译:即使不常规使用分流术,对侧颈动脉闭塞术也不是颈动脉内膜切除术的禁忌症

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Objective: Although controversial, carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been proposed as being safer than carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with a contralateral internal carotid occlusion (CCO). Arguably, with a CCO, CAS should be even safer than CEA if a shunt is not used. Accordingly, we reviewed our experience with 2183 CEAs performed routinely without a shunt to evaluate the risk of CEA performed in a subset of 147 patients with a CCO. Methods: Between 1988 and 2011, 147 CEAs (111 men [75%], 36 women [25%]) were routinely performed without a shunt despite CCO. Of these patients, 76% were asymptomatic. CEAs were performed by seven surgeons using standard techniques (not eversion), with patients under general anesthesia and blood pressure maintained at >130 mm Hg. All patients received heparin (7500 U), and protamine reversal was routine. Median cross-clamp time was 20 minutes (range, 14-40 minutes). Results: Three neurologic events occurred ≤30 days (2.0%). One transient ischemic attack (TIA) occurred immediately, and one occurred on the first postoperative day due to occlusion of the endarterectomy site. One patient sustained an immediate stroke and died of a large computed tomography-documented atheroembolic shower. Conclusions: Our data demonstrate the safety of CEA in the presence of a CCO, even when performed without a shunt. It is unlikely that the stroke or delayed TIA could be attributed to nonshunting or CCO. Even if so, the stroke and death rates would be lower than those previously reported for patients undergoing CEA in the presence of a CCO. This may be due to short cross-clamp times, careful technique, general anesthesia, and blood pressure support. Given these low adverse event rates, our experience refutes the assumption that patients with a CCO are at such a high risk for CEA that the only alternative is CAS.
机译:目的:尽管存在争议,但已提出对于对侧颈内动脉闭塞(CCO)患者,颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)比颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)更安全。可以说,对于CCO,如果不使用分流器,CAS应该比CEA更安全。因此,我们回顾了我们常规进行的2183例CEA的经验,以评估在147例CCO患者中进行CEA的风险。方法:在1988年至2011年之间,尽管进行了CCO检查,但仍常规进行了147例CEA(111例男性[75%],36例女性[25%])。在这些患者中,无症状的占76%。由7位外科医生使用标准技术(非外翻术)进行CEA,患者在全身麻醉下且血压维持在> 130 mm Hg。所有患者均接受肝素(7500 U)治疗,鱼精蛋白逆转是常规的。交叉夹持时间中位数为20分钟(范围为14-40分钟)。结果:≤30天(2.0%)发生了3次神经系统事件。立即发生一次短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA),由于阻塞了动脉内膜切除术部位,在术后第一天发生了一次短暂性脑缺血发作。一名患者立即中风,死于大型计算机断层扫描记录的动脉粥样硬化性淋浴。结论:我们的数据证明了在存在CCO的情况下CEA的安全性,即使在没有分流的情况下也是如此。中风或延迟性TIA不太可能归因于不分流或CCO。即使这样,中风和死亡率也将低于先前在存在CCO的情况下接受CEA的患者的报告。这可能是由于较短的交叉钳夹时间,谨慎的技术,全身麻醉和血压支持所致。鉴于这些不良事件的发生率较低,我们的经验驳斥了这样的假设,即CCO患者罹患CEA的风险很高,因此唯一的选择就是CAS。

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