4.6 Article

Early versus Delayed Extracranial-Intracranial Bypass Surgery in Symptomatic Atherosclerotic Occlusion

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 85, 期 5, 页码 656-662

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyy411

关键词

EC-IC bypass; Large vessel occlusion; Atherosclerosis; Bypass surgery; Intracranial occlusion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials of extracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) bypass surgery studied patients in subacute and chronic stage after ischemic event. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the short-term outcomes of EC-IC bypass in progressive acute ischemic stroke or recent transient ischemic attacks. METHODS: The study was a retrospective review at a single tertiary referral center from 2008 to 2015. Inclusion criteria consisted of EC-IC bypass within 1 yr of last ischemic symptoms ipsilateral to atherosclerotic occlusion of internal carotid or middle cerebral artery. Early bypass group who underwent surgery within 7 d of last ischemic symptoms were compared to late bypass group who underwent surgery >7 d from last ischemic symptom. The primary endpoint was perioperative ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or intracranial hemorrhage within 7 d of surgery. RESULTS: Of 126 patients who underwent EC-IC bypass during the period, 81 patients met inclusion criteria, 69 (85%) persons had carotid artery occlusion, 7 (9%) had proximal MCA occlusion, and 5 (6%) had both. Early surgery had a 31% (9/29) perioperative stroke rate compared to 11.5% (6/52) of patients undergoing late bypass (P=.04). Of patients with acute strokewithin 7 d of surgery, 41% (7/17) had perioperative stroke within 7 d (P=.07). Six of nine patients (67%) with blood pressure dependent fluctuation of neurologic symptoms had perioperative stroke (P=.049). CONCLUSION: EC-IC bypass in setting of acute symptomatic stroke within 1wk may confer higher risk of perioperative stroke. Patients undergoing expedited or urgent bypass for unstable or fluctuating stroke symptoms might be at highest risk for perioperative stroke.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据