ObjectiveTo observe the effects of endovascular radiation (ER) on the proliferation and apoptosis of medial smooth muscle cells (SMC) and to discuss the possible mechanisms of radiation in the prevention of vascular restenosis (RS) in rabbits after carotid endarterectomy (CEA).MethodsForty rabbits undergoing CEA were randomly divided into four groups (each group=10) and given a radiation dose of 0, 10, 20 and 40 Gy 32P respectively. Rabbits were killed on the 3rd, 7th, 14th, 28th and 56th day after operation. The specimens were collected and histopathologic examinations were done.ResultsProliferation apparently occurred in the intima and media of carotid the lumen became narrow in the control group on the 14 th, 28 th and 56 th day after operation. While in the radiation groups, proliferation was apparently suppressed and the lumen was much less narrowed (P＜0.05). The apoptosis rate of SMCs and PCNA positive cells increased on the 3rd day after operation and reached the peak on the 7th day. There was statistical difference between the ER groups and control group (P＜0.01). The effects were much more evident in 20 Gy and 40 Gy groups compared with 10 Gy group (P＜0.01).ConclusionER may prevent RS by suppressing SMC proliferation and migration as well as inducing SMC apoptosis. The effects are positively correlated with radiation doses. SMC proliferation and apoptosis occur in the early period after balloon injury, while hyperplasia of intima and medial happens later.
Objective To investigate the effect of combined carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and offpump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) on patients with carotid arteriostenosis and coronary heart diseases. Methods A total of 121 consecutive patients with carotid arteriostenosis and coronary artery diseases underwent CEA and OPCAB between January 2003 and December 2009 in Nanjing First Hospital of Nanjing Medical University. There were 81 males and 40 females, with their ages ranged from 62 to 72 years (67.2±4.5 years). All patients had 3vessel coronary artery lesions, and there were 3 cases of left main coronary artery lesion. Unilateral carotid arteriostenosis (≥50%) occurred in 95 patients, and bilateral (≥50%) in 26 patients. The occurrence of stroke, myocardial infarction, angina pectoris and other complications after operation was observed, and followup was carried out. Results All patients underwent unilateral CEA including 50 on the right side and 71 left. The mean block time of carotid artery in CEA was 20.5±7.0 minutes. The average number of distal grafts per patient in OPCAB was 2.9±0.3. None of the patients had stroke or myocardial infarction and no perioperative death occurred. Eightyseven patients felt well in terms of their neuropsycho symptoms; 32 felt no change; and 2 worsened. Follow-up was done for all the patients with a follow-up rate of 100%. The mean time of the follow-up was 67.5±12.5 months. During this period, none of the patients manifested stroke, myocardial infarction or neuropsycho symptoms. Conclusion Concomitant OPCAB and CEA is a safe and effective procedure in patients with carotid arteriostenosis and coronary artery diseases. It can reduce the rate of postoperative stroke significantly. However, longterm outcome of the procedure needs operative experience accumulation, longterm follow-up and observation, and serious research and illumination.
Objective To compare the early compl ications of carotid stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in treatment of carotid artery stenosis. Methods Between January 2005 and December 2007, 63 patients with carotid artery stenosis were treated with CEA in 36 cases (CEA group) and with CAS in 27 cases (CAS group). There were 42 males and 21 females with an average age of 67.5 years (range, 52-79 years). The locations were the left side in 28 cases and the rightside in 35 cases. The carotid stenosis was 60%-95% (mean, 79%). The major cl inical symptoms were stroke and transient ischemic attack. The cranial CT showed old cerebral infarction in 24 cases, lacunar infarction in 22 cases, and no obvious abnormal change in 17 cases. The encephalon, heart, and local compl ications were compared between 2 groups within 7 days after operation. Results In CEA group, encephalon compl ications occurred in 3 cases (8.3%), heart compl ications in 2 cases (5.6%), and local compl ications in 5 cases (13.9%); while in CAS group, encephalon compl ications occurred in 8 cases (29.6%), heart compl ications in 1 case (3.7%), and local compl ications in 3 cases (11.1%). The encephalon compl ication ratio of CAS group was significantly higher than that of CEA group (χ2=4.855, P=0.028); and there was no significant difference in other compl ications ratios between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). Conclusion CEA is the first choice to treat carotid artery stenosis.
Objective To summarize cl inical experience of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in treating severe carotid stenosis. Methods Between October 1998 and January 2010, 215 patients with carotid stenosis were treated with CEA. There were 140 males and 75 females with an average age of 66 years (range, 51-88 years). Transient ischemic attack (TIA) occurred in127 cases, and 31 cases had history of cerebral infarction. All cases were diagnosed definitely by selective angiography and/or CT angiography, and stenosis degree was more than 80%; contralateral carotid artery was also involved in 45 cases. Ninty-six cases were found to have coronary artery stenosis by coronary angiography. CEA and coronary artery bypass grafting were performed simultaneously in 25 cases. Peripheral arterial disease was found in 43 cases and treated at the same time. Results A total of 155 patients were followed up 6-72 months. The cl inical symptom significantly alleviated in 148 cases postoperatively. Two cases had compl ication of cerebral hemorrhage within 1 week postoperatively; one died and the other was resumed after the conservative treatment. One case had hypoglossal nerve injury. Four cases had injuring marginal mandibular branch of the facial nerve, and no special treatment was given. Restenosis was found in 25 patients, and the stenosis degree was less than 25%; moreover, the patients had no TIA. One case died of heart attack at 3 years of follow-up period. Conclusion CEA is an effective and safe method for treating severe carotid stenosis.
ObjectiveTo summarize the etiology and prevention measures of carotid artery pseudoaneurysms following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and discuss the complications and prognosis of it performed surgery and endovascular treatment. MethodsThe process and experience of diagnosis and treatment of two patients with carotid pseudoaneurysm following CEA admitted in this hospital from January 2000 to March 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. The related English literatures concerning carotid artery pseudoaneurysm following CEA in PubMed, SpringerLink, ELSEVIER, and ScienceDirect database were searched and then made a conclusion. Results①The incidence of carotid artery pseudoaneurysms following CEA in this hospital was 0.31% (2/641). These two patients were treated with surgery and endovascular therapy respectively, and both recovered well after the treatment.②Thirty-nine related literatures totally were collected, including 187 patients with carotid artery pseudoaneurysm. One hundred and forty patients were treated with artificial patches during CEA, and 36 patients suffered secondary infection in the surgical sites. One hundred and fifty-two patients were treated with surgery, while 33 patients were treated with endovascular therapy, the residual two patients were accepted hybrid surgery. The overall incidence of cranial nerve injuries, the incidence of 30-day stroke, and the incidence of 30-day mortality were 6.4% (9/141), 7.4% (12/163), and 2.7% (5/182), respectively. ConclusionsSurgical site infection is one of the important reasons which lead to carotid artery pseudoaneurysm following CEA. Aneurysm resection and carotid artery reconstruction is still the main treatment of the carotid artery pseudoaneurysm; endovascular therapy could be used as a choice for a part of the patients. How to reduce the perioperative cranial nerve damage and the incidence of complications such as stroke still need further to be studied.
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) in the treatment of patients with carotid artery stenosis, and to provide a more abundant evidence-based medicine for the treatment of CEA and CAS in patients with carotid artery stenosis. MethodsForty patients with carotid artery stenosis were randomly divided into CEA group and CAS group based on the operative indication. Patients in CEA group were given carotid endarterectomy treatment and those in CAS group were given carotid artery stenting treatment. Then clinical efficacy of the two groups were observed and compared. ResultsIn terms of the occurring rate of perioperative complications, cardiovascular events in 3 months after operation, and some major end events such as stroke, death and so on, the comparative difference between the two groups was of no statistical significance (P > 0.05). Through the followed-up visits of 12 months, the comparative difference between the two groups was also of no statistical significance (P > 0.05) in terms of the occurring rate of carotid artery restenosis and disabling or fatal stroke. ConclusionsFor patients with severe extracranial carotid stenosis under indication of operation treatment, carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting are of equivalent clinical efficacy, and both of them are of high security, although further study with large-amount and evidence-based medical data in long term from multiple centers is still in need.
Objective To update available evidence on safety and efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) in treatment of carotid artery stenosis by a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods A comprehensive search was performed of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of science, WanFang, and CNKI databases (from January 1990 to July 2015), to collect articles and past systematic reviews, and then abstraced lists of recent scientific conferences which were related with safety and efficacy of CEA versus CAS in treatment of carotid artery stenosis. At last, Meta analysis was performed by RevMan 5.1 software. Results Fifteen RCTs enrolling 9 828 patients were included in the Meta-analysis. Compared with CAS, CEA was associated with a significantly lower incidences of any stroke or death within 30 days after surgery (OR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.51-0.77, P＜0.05) and any stroke or death during follow-up, or ipsilateral stroke after 30 days of operation (OR=0.61, 95% CI: 0.48-0.76, P＜0.05）, but associated with a significantly greater incidences of myocardial infarction (OR=1.81, 95% CI: 1.14-2.87, P=0.01) and cranial neuropathy (OR=18.28, 95% CI: 7.99-41.82, P＜0.05) within 30 days after surgery. Conclusion In comparison with CAS, CEA is associated with a lower incidences of stroke or death and a greater incidence of myocardial infarction and cranial neuropathy within 30 days after surgery, and was associated with a significantly lower incidence of any stroke or death during follow-up, or ipsilateral stroke after 30 days of operation. So the results of Meta-analysis support continued use of CEA as the standard method in treatment of carotid artery stenosis.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of perioperative dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) or single antiplatelet treatment (SAPT) for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA).MethodsWe searched English and Chinese databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, Chongqing VIP, and relevant clinical trial registry platforms (searched from database establishment to January 2020). Cohort studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included to evaluated the use of DAPT and SAPT for patients undergoing CEA. Stroke, myocardial infarction, artery restenosis, and composite endpoint (stroke or myocardial infarction or artery restenosis) were used as effectiveness outcomes. Death and any bleeding event were used as safety outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.3 and STATA 15.1 softwares.ResultsA total of 11 studies with 123 748 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that there was no significant decrease in the risk of stroke [relative risk (RR)=0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.66, 1.01), P=0.06], myocardial infarction [RR=1.31, 95%CI (0.92, 1.87), P=0.13], artery restenosis [RR=0.55, 95%CI (0.18, 1.68), P=0.29], or composite endpoint event [RR=0.90, 95%CI (0.59, 1.37), P=0.62] for CEA patients with DAPT during the perioperative period compared with SAPT. The difference in mortality rate was not statistically significant between DAPT and SAPT for CEA patients during the perioperative period [RR=0.99, 95%CI (0.44, 2.22), P=0.97]. CEA patients with DAPT had a higher risk of any bleeding event [RR=1.64, 95%CI (1.08, 2.50), P=0.02].ConclusionsPerioperative CEA patients with DAPT are not associated with a lower risk of vascular events recurrence, but the risk of any bleeding event may increase. Therefore, SAPT during the perioperative period of patients undergoing CEA may be better than DAPT.