[1]白京岳,孟庆斌,王子博,等.颈内动脉-后交通动脉瘤常规支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞治疗临床结果及复发因素分析[J].介入放射学杂志,2021,30(11):1095-1099.
BAI Jingyue,MENG Qingbin,WANG Zibo,et al.Conventional stent-assisted coil embolization for internal carotid artery-posterior communicating artery aneurysms: analysis of clinical results and recurrence factors[J].journal interventional radiology,2021,30(11):1095-1099.
点击复制
颈内动脉-后交通动脉瘤常规支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞治疗临床结果及复发因素分析()
《介入放射学杂志》[ISSN:1008-794X/CN:31-1796/R]
- 卷:
-
30
- 期数:
-
2021年11
- 页码:
-
1095-1099
- 栏目:
-
神经介入
- 出版日期:
-
2021-11-25
文章信息/Info
- Title:
-
Conventional stent-assisted coil embolization for internal carotid artery-posterior communicating artery aneurysms: analysis of clinical results and recurrence factors
- 作者:
-
白京岳; 孟庆斌; 王子博; 管 生
-
- Author(s):
-
BAI Jingyue; MENG Qingbin; WANG Zibo; GUAN Sheng
-
Department of Neurointervention, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan Province 450052, China
-
- 关键词:
-
【关键词】 支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞; 颈内动脉-后交通动脉动脉瘤; 复发; 危险因素
- 文献标志码:
-
A
- 摘要:
-
【摘要】 目的 分析常规支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞治疗颈内动脉(ICA)-后交通动脉(PComA)动脉瘤的效果及复发的危险因素。 方法 收集2013年1月至2019年12月在郑州大学第一附属医院接受常规支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞术治疗的ICA-PComA动脉瘤患者临床资料。采用单因素和多因素logistics回归分析确定常规支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞术后动脉瘤复发的危险因素。结果 共入组患者199例(224枚动脉瘤),平均年龄为57岁,女性168例(84.4%)。平均随访时间12个月,20例患者20枚(8.9%)动脉瘤复发。单因素分析结果显示,术后动脉瘤复发和未复发患者伴高血压、动脉瘤位于大弯侧、破裂动脉瘤、动脉瘤直径、瘤颈宽、瘤颈口有优势PComA、流入道未致密栓塞、第1枚弹簧圈成篮即刻造影差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。多因素logistics回归分析显示,伴高血压、动脉瘤破裂、动脉瘤直径≥5 mm、瘤颈口有优势PComA、流入道未致密填塞、第1枚弹簧圈成篮未覆盖瘤颈口是术后动脉瘤复发的危险因素。 结论 伴高血压、动脉瘤破裂、动脉瘤直径≥5 mm、瘤颈口有优势PComA、流入道未致密填塞、第1枚弹簧圈成篮未覆盖瘤颈口的ICA-PComA动脉瘤患者,常规支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞术后复发风险较高。
参考文献/References:
[1] Akimura T, Abiko S, Ito H. True posterior communicating artery aneurysm[J]. Acta Neurol Scand, 1991, 84:207- 209.
[2] Muneda K,Yoshizu H, Terada H. True posterior communicating artery aneurysm[J]. No Shinkei Geka, 2001, 29:163- 168.
[3] Golshani K, Ferrell A, Zomorodi A, et al. A review of the management of posterior communicating artery aneurysms in the modern era[J]. Surg Neurol Int, 2010, 1:88.
[4] Zhang X, Zuo Q, Tang H, et al. Stent assisted coiling versus non- stent assisted coiling for the management of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a meta- analysis and systematic review[J]. J Neurointerv Surg, 2019, 11:489- 496.
[5] Taweesomboonyat C, Tunthanathip T, Kaewborisutsakul A, et al. Outcome of ruptured posterior communicating artery aneurysm treatment comparing between clipping and coiling techniques[J]. World Neurosurg, 2019, 125:e183- e188.
[6] 王怡博,冯广森. 后交通动脉瘤介入栓塞术与夹闭术疗效分析[J]. 介入放射学杂志, 2015, 24:1095- 1097.
[7] Kawabata Y, Nakazawa T, Fukuda S, et al. Endovascular embo- lization of branch- incorporated cerebral aneurysms[J]. Neuroradiol J, 2017, 30:600- 606.
[8] Yang Y, Su W, Meng Q. Endovascular treatment of ruptured true posterior communicating artery aneurysms[J]. Turk Neurosurg,2015, 25:73- 77.
[9] Kim BM, Park SI, Kim DJ, et al. Endovascular coil embolization of aneurysms with a branch incorporated into the sac[J]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2010, 31:145- 151.
[10] Molyneux A, Kerr R, Stratton I, et al. International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial(ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised trial[J]. Lancet, 2002, 360:1267- 1274.
[11] Choi HH, Cho YD, Yoo DH, et al. Comparative analysis of coil embolization in posterior and anterior communicating artery aneurysms[J]. J Neurointerv Surg, 2019, 11:790- 795.
[12] Luo B, Yang X, Wang S, et al. High shear stress and flow velocity in partially occluded aneurysms prone to recanalization[J]. Stroke, 2011, 42:745- 753.
[13] Cho YD, Kang HS, Kim JE, et al. Modified protection using far proximal portion of self- expandable closed- cell stents for emboli-zation of wide- necked intracranial aneurysms[J]. Neuroradiology,2014, 56:851- 857.
[14] Enriquez- Marulanda A, Salem MM, Ascanio LC, et al. No differences in effectiveness and safety between pipeline embolization device and stent- assisted coiling for the treatment of communicating segment internal carotid artery aneurysms[J]. Neuroradiol J, 2019, 32:344- 352.
[15] Nguyen TN, Hoh BL, Amin- Hanjani S, et al. Comparison of ruptured vs unruptured aneurysms in recanalization after coil embolization[J]. Surg Neurol, 2007, 68:19- 23.
[16] Lü N, Zhao R, Yang P, et al. Predictors of recurrence after stent- assisted coil embolization of paraclinoid aneurysms[J]. J Clin Neurosci, 2016, 33:173- 176.
[17] Choi HH, Lee SH, Yeon EK, et al. Determination of aneurysm volume critical for stability after coil embolization: a retrospective study of 3530 aneurysms[J]. World Neurosurg, 2019, 132:e766- e774.
[18] Raymond J, Guilbert F, Weill A, et al. Long- term angiographic recurrences after selective endovascular treatment of aneurysms with detachable coils[J]. Stroke, 2003, 34:1398- 1403.
[19] Campi A, Ramzi N, Molyneux AJ, et al. Retreatment of ruptured cerebral aneurysms in patients randomized by coiling or clipping in the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial(ISAT)[J]. Stroke, 2007, 38:1538- 1544.
[20] King B, Vaziri S, Singla A, et al. Clinical and angiographic outcomes after stent- assisted coiling of cerebral aneurysms with Enterprise and Neuroform stents: a comparative analysis of the literature[J]. J Neurointerv Surg, 2015, 7:905- 909.
[21] Piotin M, Blanc R, Spelle L, et al. Stent- assisted coiling of intracranial aneurysms: clinical and angiographic results in 216 consecutive aneurysms[J]. Stroke, 2010, 41:110- 115.
[22] 江国权,方兴根,徐善水,等. 颅内动脉瘤破裂的血流动力学和形态学因素[J]. 介入放射学杂志, 2014, 23:1109- 1113.
[23] Zhang G,Liu Y,Liu Y,et al. Safety and efficacy of complete versus near- complete coiling in treatment of intracranial aneurysms[J]. J Intervent Med, 2020, 3:136- 141.
备注/Memo
- 备注/Memo:
-
(收稿日期:2020- 10- 18)
(本文编辑:边 佶)
更新日期/Last Update:
2021-11-22