不同介入方法治疗颅内大型或巨大型动脉瘤的单中心经验

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的评价不同介入方法治疗颅内大型或巨大型动脉瘤的有效性、并发症发生率以及预后情况。方法回顾性分析第二军医大学附属长海医院神经外科自2001年1月～2010年12月采用不同介入方法治疗的134例颅内大型或巨大型动脉瘤患者的临床资料，按患者接受介入治疗方法不同分为4组，其中载瘤动脉闭塞术11例，单纯弹簧圈栓塞20例，支架辅助下弹簧圈栓塞78例，血流导向装置治疗25例，随访时间6～44个月。影像学结果依据改良Raymond评分，临床症状依据改良Rankin量表（modified Rankin Scale，mRS）评分系统评价，分别评价4组患者出院时的预后良好率、末次随访时动脉瘤的治愈率、复发率，预后良好率及手术并发症情况。结果载瘤动脉闭塞组出院时的预后良好率是100%，单纯弹簧圈栓塞组为70%，支架辅助弹簧圈组为91%，而血流导向装置组为100%，四组间差异具有显著性（P=0.0030）。载瘤动脉闭塞组末次随访时治愈率是63.6%，单纯弹簧圈栓塞组为5.6%，支架辅助弹簧圈组为37.2%，而血流导向装置组为72%，四组间差异具有显著性（P=0.0002）。载瘤动脉闭塞组末次随访时的复发率为0%，单纯弹簧圈栓塞组为83.3%，支架辅助弹簧圈组为30.8%，而血流导向装置组为0%，四组间差异具有显著性（P＜0.0001）。载瘤动脉闭塞组末次随访时预后良好率为100%，单纯弹簧圈组为75%，支架辅助弹簧圈组为90%，血流导向装置组为100%，四组间差异具有显著性（P=0.0209）。载瘤动脉闭塞组并发症发生率为27.3%，单纯弹簧圈组为30%，支架辅助弹簧圈组为14.1%，血流导向装置组为0%，四组间差异无显著性（P=0.0650）。结论在颅内大型或巨大型动脉瘤的介入治疗中，单纯弹簧圈栓塞复发率高，支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞可降低复发率，载瘤动脉闭塞组预后良好率及复发率满意，但并发症发生率偏高，血流导向装置的初步临床结果令人满意。

文章导读： 通过对长海医院神经外科单中心采用不同介入方法治疗颅内大型或巨大型动脉瘤的效果的评估，促进临床对此类疾病的认识。

关键词: 动脉瘤; 大型；介入治疗；血流导向装置

Abstract:

Objective To evaluate the clinic efficacy, complication and prognosis of different interventional modalities in the treatment of large and giant intracranial aneurysms. Methods Between January 2001 and December 2010, 134 patients with large and giant intracranial aneurysms treated by endovascular approaches in the Department of Neurosurgery of Changhai Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Of the 134 patients, 11 had been treated by parent artery occlusion, 20 by coil embolization, 78 by stent-assisted coil, and the rest 25 patients by Tubridge. Patients were followed up for 6~44 months after the procedure. Angiographic results were evaluated with Raymond grading system, whereas clinical outcomes were evaluated with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Favorable prognosis rate when discharge, the cure rate, the recurrence rate and favorable prognosis rate when follow-up, complication incidence were compared. Results The rate of favorable prognosis in the parent artery occlusion group was 100%, coil embolization group was 70.0%, stent-assisted coil embolization group was 91% and flow-diverter device group was 100%; the differences between groups are statistically significant (P=0.0030). At the time of last follow-up, the cure rate of the parent artery occlusion group was 63.6%, coil embolization group was 5.6%, stent-assisted coil embolization group was 37.2% and flow-diverter device group was 72%; the differences between groups are statistically significant (P=0.0002). At the time of last follow-up, the recurrence rate of the parent artery occlusion group was 0%, coil embolization group was 83.3%, stent-assisted coil embolization group was 30.8% and flow-diverter device group was 0%; the differences between groups are statistically significant (P<0.0001). The last follow-up favorable prognosis rate of the parent artery occlusion group was 100%, coil embolization group was 75%, stent-assisted coil embolization group was 90% and flow-diverter device group was 100%; the differences between groups are statistically significant (P=0.0209). The complication incidence of the parent artery occlusion group was 27.3%, coil embolization group was 30%, stent-assisted coil embolization group was 14.1% and flow-diverter device group was 0%; however, there were no statistical differences in the complication incidence between the four groups (P=0.0650). Conclusion Endovascular treatment of large or giant intracranial aneurysms is very challenging. Coil embolization is often associated with a very high recurrence rate, stent-assisted coil embolization can reduce the recurrence rate, parent artery occlusion gets satisfied favorable prognosis and recurrence rate, but the complication incidence is relatively high, the preliminary clinical results of flow diverter device appear to be satisfactory.

Key words: last follow-up, the cure rate of the parent artery occlusion group was 63.6%, coil embolization group was 5.6%, stent-assisted coil embolization group was 37.2% and flow-diverter device group was 72%

陈岩，杨鹏飞，周宇，黄清海，洪波，赵文元，许奕，刘建民. 不同介入方法治疗颅内大型或巨大型动脉瘤的单中心经验[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2013, 8(11): 868-874.

CHEN Yan, YANG Peng-Fei, ZHOU Yu, HUANG Qing-Hai, HONG Bo, ZHAO Wen-Yuan, XU Yi, LIU Jian-Min.. Different Interventional Treatments of Large or Giant Intracranial Aneurysms:a Single Center Experience[J]. Chinese Journal of Stroke, 2013, 8(11): 868-874.

参考文献

1 Gonzalez NR, Duckwiler G, Jahan R, et al. Challenges in the endovascular treatment of giant intracranial aneurysms[J]. Neurosurgery, 2008, 62:1324-1335.

2 Sullivan BJ, Sekhar LN, Duong DH, et al. Profound hypothermia and circulatory arrest with skull base approaches for treatment of complex posterior circulation aneurysms[J]. Acta Neurochir (Wien), 1999, 141:1-11.

3 Ogilvy CS, Carter BS. Stratification of outcome for surgically treated unruptured intracranial aneurysms[J]. Neurosurgery, 2003, 52:82-87.

4 Parkinson RJ, Eddleman CS, Batjer HH, et al. Giant intracranial aneurysms:endovascular challenges[J]. Neurosurgery, 2006, 59:S103-S113.

5 Gonzalez NR, Duckwiler G, Jahan R, et al. Challenges in the endovascular treatment of giant intracranial aneurysms[J]. Neurosurgery, 2006, 59:S113-124.

6 Rinkel GJE, Djibuti M, Algra A, et al. Prevalence and risk of rupture of intracranial aneurysms-a systematic review[J]. Stroke, 1998, 29:251-256.

7 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.

8 Uyttenboogaart M, Stewart RE, Vroomen PC, et al. Optimizing cutoff scores for the Barthel index and the modified Rankin scale for defining outcome in acute stroke trials[J]. Stroke, 2005, 36:1984-1987.

9 No authors listed. Unruptured intracranial aneurysms--risk of rupture and risks of surgical intervention. International Study of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms Investigators[J]. N Engl J Med, 1998, 339:1725-1733.

10 van Rooij WJ, Sluzewski M, Metz NH, et al. Carotid balloon occlusion for large and giant aneurysms:evaluation of a new test occlusion protocol[J]. Neurosurgery, 2000, 47:116-122.

11 Carter BS, Ogilvy CS, Putman C, et al. Selective use of extracranial-intracranial bypass as an adjunct to therapeutic internal carotid artery occlusion[J]. Clin Neurosurg, 2000, 46:351-361.

12 Jha AN, Butler P, Lye RH, et al. Carotid ligation:what happens in the long term?[J]. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 1986, 49:893-898.

13 Gruber A, Killer M, Bavinzski G, et al. Clinical and angiographic results of endosaccular coiling treatment of giant and very large intracranial aneurysms:a 7-year, single-center experience[J]. Neurosurgery, 1999, 45:793-800.

14 Murayama Y, Nien YL, Duckwiler G, et al. Guglielmi detachable coil embolization of cerebral aneurysms:11 years' experience[J]. J Neurosurg, 2003, 98:959-966.

15 Sluzewski M, van Rooij WJ, Slob MJ, et al. Relation between aneurysm volume, packing, and compaction in 145 cerebral aneurysms treated with coils[J]. Radiology, 2004, 231:653-658.

16 van Rooij WJ, Sluzewski M. Endovascular treatment of large and giant aneurysms[J]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2009, 30:12-18.

17 Spetzler RF, Riina HA, Lemole GM Jr. Giant aneurysms[J]. Neurosurgery, 2001, 49:902-908.

18 刘建民, 洪波, 许奕, 等. 血管内支架治疗颅内动脉瘤[J]. 介入放射学杂志, 2001, 10:195-198.

19 Gao X, Liang G, Li Y, et al. Neuroform stent-assisted coiling of large and giant intracranial aneurysms:angiographic and clinical outcomes in 71 consecutive patients[J]. Neurol India, 2010, 58:825-832.

20 Yavuz K, Geyik S, Cekirge S, et al. Double stent-assisted coil embolization treatment for bifurcation aneurysms:immediate treatment results and long-term angiographic outcome[J]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2013, 34:1778-1784.

21 White PM, Lewis SC, Nahser H, et al. HydroCoil Endovascular Aneurysm Occlusion and Packing Study (HELPS trial):procedural safety and operator-assessed efficacy results[J]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2008, 29:217-223.

22 杨鹏飞, 刘建民, 洪波, 等. 支架半释放技术辅助栓塞颅内复杂动脉瘤[J]. 介入放射学杂志, 2009, 18:723-726.

23 黄清海, 刘建民, 杨鹏飞, 等. 支架后释放技术在颅内宽颈动脉瘤栓塞治疗中的应用[J]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2009, 3:208-213.

24 Lylyk P, Miranda C, Ceratto R, et al. Curative endovascular reconstruction of cerebral aneurysms with the pipeline embolization device:the Buenos Aires experience[J]. Neurosurgery, 2009, 64:632-642.

25 Szikora I, Berentei Z, Kulcsar Z, et al. Treatment of intracranial aneurysms by functional reconstruction of the parent artery:the Budapest experience with the pipeline embolization device[J]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2010, 31:1139-1147.

26 Kan P, Siddiqui AH, Veznedaroglu E, et al. Early postmarket results after treatment of intracranial aneurysms with the pipeline embolization device:a U.S. multicenter experience[J]. Neurosurgery, 2012, 71:1080-1088.

[1]	王李, 李振水, 吴俊, 许英霞, 郝春满. 接受围手术期标准加速康复管理的颅内动脉瘤患者营养状态与显微外科夹闭术后并发症关系研究[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2022, 17(09): 966-971.
[2]	吴倩, 陶立元, 陈思琪, 钟莲梅, 刘丽萍, 米东华. 血糖波动对动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血后迟发性脑缺血及30天死亡的影响 [J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2022, 17(08): 845-850.
[3]	宋绪林, 陈来照, 韦明桂. 大脑前动脉A2段构型对左侧翼点入路夹闭前交通动脉瘤的影响 [J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2022, 17(08): 851-856.
[4]	邓子茹, 孙文, 陈育华, 吕心怡, 桂韦. 缘于未破裂颅内囊状动脉瘤的头痛研究进展[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2022, 17(05): 472-476.
[5]	杨卜凡, 邹新宇, 龚小沉, 都泓材, 陈忠伦, 唐宇凤, 李肇坤. 反应性红细胞增多症伴大脑前动脉夹层动脉瘤致脑梗死1例[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2022, 17(03): 310-313.
[6]	鲁悦, 陶涛, 庄宗, 李伟, 杭春华. 以问题为基础教学法在颅内动脉瘤外科治疗临床教学中的应用[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2021, 16(12): 1302-1304.
[7]	曹毅. 支架辅助栓塞在颅内动脉瘤治疗中的应用[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2021, 16(06): 533-536.
[8]	胡航, 曹毅, 鲍娟. 血流导向装置治疗颅内大型或巨大型动脉瘤的研究进展[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2021, 16(06): 538-543.
[9]	陈柏宇, 曹毅, 鲍娟, 杨勇涛, 景睿, 李云飞, 胡佳怡, 赵青. 支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞治疗前交通动脉宽颈动脉瘤[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2021, 16(06): 544-550.
[10]	何宜轩, 王冰, 邓剑平, 于嘉, 赵振伟. 血管内治疗床突旁未破裂颅内动脉瘤的疗效分析[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2021, 16(06): 551-555.
[11]	徐伟东, 陈如东, 厉华, 曾令成, 杨洪宽, 于加省. 替罗非班治疗颅内动脉瘤介入围手术期支架内血栓的单中心经验[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2021, 16(06): 556-560.
[12]	闫婧，李朝霞，刘丽娟，张磊，潘华，赵性泉. 事件相关电位诊断动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血后认知功能障碍的研究[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2021, 16(01): 58-63.
[13]	廖艺斐，张慧，邹良玉. 神经炎症在动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血后早期脑损伤中的作用[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2021, 16(01): 92-96.
[14]	刘亚玲，于秋红，王丛，薛连璧. 高压氧治疗未破裂颅内动脉瘤夹闭术后脑梗死疗效及影响因素分析[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2020, 15(08): 842-847.
[15]	宋璐，王泳，李海东，高亚利，刘洁，李征，陆敏杰，刘月伟，张潇潇. 高压氧联合康复治疗动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血术后患者6个月预后影响因素分析[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2020, 15(08): 848-852.