经皮腔内支架植入术治疗中心静脉狭窄29例分析

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-5782.2020.02.002

中华介入放射学电子杂志 ›› 2020, Vol. 08 ›› Issue (02) : 108 -113. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-5782.2020.02.002

所属专题：经典病例；经典病例；文献；

血管介入

经皮腔内支架植入术治疗中心静脉狭窄29例分析

郭辉¹, 刘佳妮², 张永裕¹, 张慧涛¹, 贺嘉男¹, 甘海润¹, 赵逆¹, 庞鹏飞¹^,^†(

)

^1. 519000　广东珠海，中山大学附属第五医院介入医学中心介入血管外科
^2. 519000　广东珠海，中山大学附属第五医院肿瘤中心头颈肿瘤科

收稿日期:2020-04-04 出版日期:2020-05-25
通信作者: 庞鹏飞

Percutaneous transluminal stenting in treatment of central venous stenosis: analysis of 29 patients

Hui Guo¹, Jiani Liu², Yongyu Zhang¹, Huitao Zhang¹, Jia'nan He¹, Hairun Gan¹, Ni Zhao¹, Pengfei Pang¹^,^†()

^1. Department of Interventional Vascular Surgery, Interventional Medical Centre
^2. Department of Head and Neck Oncology, Cancer Center, the Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangdong Zhuhai 519000, China

Received:2020-04-04 Published:2020-05-25
Corresponding author: Pengfei Pang
About author:
Corresponding author: Pang Pengfei; Email: pflb@sina.com

全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用

目的

评价经皮腔内支架植入术（PTS）治疗中心静脉狭窄（CVS）的临床疗效。

方法

回顾分析29例中心静脉狭窄患者的临床资料，所有患者均经影像学证实并接受PTS治疗。出院后于术后1个月、3个月、6个月定期接受随访，分析其影像学检查、治疗效果、并发症及再次干预等。

结果

29例患者实施PTS治疗共计36例/次，技术成功率约97.2%，临床有效率约94.4%；植入支架共计48枚，其中裸支架36枚，覆膜支架12枚；所有患者均未见明显手术相关并发症。术后随访3～38个月，10例/次患者于术后出现再狭窄并行再次手术干预；其中，裸支架PTS术后再狭窄率（45.8%）显著高于覆膜支架（10.0%）（χ²=3.852，P=0.046）。合并慢性肾功能衰竭（CRF）经自体动静脉瘘行血液透析患者PTS术后再狭窄率（57.1%）显著高于非CRF患者（19.0%）（χ²=5.256，P= 0.022）。相比于术后接受规律抗凝治疗的患者，未接受规律抗凝患者术后支架再狭窄率较高（26.67% vs 100%，χ²= 8.311，P=0.004）。

结论

CVS患者接受PTS治疗可取得较好的临床效果，采用覆膜支架术后再狭窄率较低；但合并CRF接受血液透析患者PTS术后再狭窄率较高；PTS术后接受规律抗凝亦很重要。

关键词: 中心静脉狭窄, 经皮腔内支架植入术, 再狭窄, 抗凝

Objective

TTo evaluate the effect of percutaneous transluminal stenting (PTS) in treatment of central venous stenosis (CVS).

Methods

Clinical data of 29 patients who were diagnosed as CVS, manifested by imaging examination, and treated by PTS were collected and reviewed retrospectively. Follow-up was performed at the first, third and sixth month after discharge. The imaging examination, clinical results, complications, and second treatment were reviewed.

Results

36 treatment of PTS were performed in the patients. The technical success rate was 97.2%, and clinical effective rate was 94.4%. A total of 48 stents were implanted, including 36 bare stents and 12 covered stents. There was no complication observed among these cases. After 3-38 months of follow-up, restenosis of the stent occurred in 10 patients after PTS, and re-intervention was performed. The restenosis rate of bare stent after PTS (45.8%) was significantly higher than that of covered stent (10.0%) (χ²=3.852, P=0.046). Moreover, the restenosis rate after PTS was 57.1% in patients with chronic renal failure (CRF) undergoing hemodialysis through autologous arteriovenous fistula, and 19.0% in non-CRF patients, with significant difference (χ2=5.256, P=0.022). Compared with patients with post-operative regular anticoagulant therapy, the restenosis rate of stent in patients without regular anticoagulant therapy was higher (26.67% vs 100%, χ2=8.311, P=0.004).

Conclusions

PTS was effective in treatment of patients who suffered with CVS.The restenosis rate when performed with covered stent was lower than that with bare stent; however, the restenosis rate following PTS was higher in patients with CRF receiving hemodialysis treatment. Moreover, post-operative regular anticoagulant therapy was critical.

Key words: Central venous stenosis, Percutaneous transluminal stenting, Restenosis, Anticoagulan

图1 患者男性，53岁，因"上腔静脉支架植入术后7月余，右上肢肿胀1周"入院；患者既往因慢性肾功能衰竭建立右上肢自体动静脉瘘，行血液透析治疗

图2 首次采用裸支架与覆膜支架行PTS治疗CVS术后一期通畅率的比较

[1]	Horikawa M, Quencer KB. Central venous interventions[J]. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol, 2017, 20(1): 48-57.
[2]	Sfyroeras GS, Antonopoulos CN, Mantas G, et al.A review of open and endovascular treatment of superior vena cava syndrome of benign aetiology[J]. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2017, 53(2): 238-254.
[3]	Fagedet D, Thony F, Timsit JF, et al. Endovascular treatment of malignant superior vena cava syndrome: results and predictive factors of clinical efficacy[J]. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2013, 36(1): 140-149.
[4]	Lanciego C, Chacón JL, Julián A, et al. Stenting as first option for endovascular treatment of malignant superior vena cava syndrome[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2001, 177(3): 585-593.
[5]	Chamsangavej C, Carrasco CH, Wallace S, et al. Stenosis of the vena cava: preliminary assessment of treatment with expandable metal stents[J]. Radiology, 1986, 161(2): 295-298.
[6]	Kishi K, Sonomura T, Mitsuzane K, et al. Self-expandable metallic stent therapy for superior vena-cava syndrome-clinical observations[J]. Radiology, 1993, 189(2): 531-535.
[7]	Sacks D, McClenny TE, Cardella JF, et al. Society of Interventional Radiology clinical practice guidelines[J]. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2003, 14(9): S199-202.
[8]	Haddad MM, Simmons B, McPhail IR, et al. Comparison of covered versus uncovered stents for benign superior vena cava (SVC) obstruction[J]. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2018, 41(5): 712-717.
[9]	Gwon DI, Ko GY, Kim JH, et al. Malignant superior vena cava syndrome: a comparative cohort study of treatment with covered stents versus uncovered stents[J]. Radiology, 2013, 266(3): 979-987.
[10]	王宾，肖恩华，尚全良，等．经皮球囊血管成形术和经皮支架植入术治疗透析通路中心静脉狭窄的临床效果比较[J]．中华介入放射学电子杂志，2018, 6(2): 137-141.
[11]	Chang CJ, Ko PJ, Hsu LA, et al. Highly increased cell proliferation activity in the restenotic hemodialysis vascular access after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty: implication in prevention of restenosis[J]. Am J Kidney Dis, 2004, 43(1): 74-84.
[12]	Sequeira A, Naljayan M, Vachharajani TJ. Vascular access guidelines: summary, rationale, and controversies[J]. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol, 2017, 20(1): 2-8.
[13]	Kee ST, Kinoshita L, Razavi MK, et al. Superior vena cava syndrome: treatment with catheter-directed thrombolysis and endovascular stent placement[J]. Radiology, 1998, 206(1):187-193.
[14]	Martin M, Baumgartner I, Kolb M, et al. Fatal pericardial tamponade after wallstent implantation for malignant superior vena cava syndrome[J]. J Endovasc Ther, 2002, 9(5): 680-684.
[15]	Nagata T, Makutani S, Uchida H, et al. Follow-up results of71 patients undergoing metallic stent placement for the treatment of a malignant obstruction of the superior vena cava. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2007, 30(5): 959-967.
[16]	Liang W, Xie J, Fu H, et al. The role of health economics and outcomes research in health care reform in China[J]. Pharmacoeconomics, 2014, 32(3): 231-234.

[1]	刘子洋, 崔俭俭, 赵茵. 产科弥散性血管内凝血及其评分系统的研究现状[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(05): 511-518.
[2]	姚金含, 王伟娜, 张玉泉. 妊娠相关深静脉血栓形成患者的预后研究现状[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(04): 367-373.
[3]	孙艺玮, 陈炜, 秦巍, 杜景辰, 孟昕, 周永军. 血管腔内介入治疗糖尿病足合并下肢动脉硬化闭塞症患者术后再狭窄与血清炎症因子的相关性[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(01): 34-40.
[4]	陈杨, 李茜, 杨中华. 慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期合并VTE抗凝治疗的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(02): 316-319.
[5]	陈婷, 许承琼, 何绍玲. 依诺肝素治疗高血压脑出血并肺栓塞的疗效和安全性分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(05): 679-681.
[6]	李翠平, 陈晓燕, 钱师宇, 林惠珠, 曾彩辉, 阳莉, 卢建溪. 不同抗凝剂保存液对脐血培养的NK细胞增殖及杀伤效应的影响[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(05): 572-576.
[7]	丁镇涛, 邢博涵, 曲洋, 王泊江, 张培训. 老年肱骨近端骨折的围手术期治疗策略[J/OL]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2024, 12(04): 292-294.
[8]	杨金朔, 吴桥伟, 王春雷, 史怀璋. 脑血管内支架成形术后再狭窄的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(03): 174-179.
[9]	赵峰, 邓默. 纤维蛋白原水平、踝肱指数与外周血管支架治疗下肢动脉硬化闭塞症后再狭窄的关系[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(02): 144-151.
[10]	李晴, 丁玉珍, 樊尚荣. 妊娠合并机械心脏瓣膜患者血栓形成抗凝治疗的研究[J/OL]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2024, 13(01): 41-48.
[11]	胡浩, 曹葳, 何益兴, 安天志. 导管接触性溶栓治疗卵巢静脉血栓二例并文献复习[J/OL]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2024, 12(01): 90-92.
[12]	彭思远, 贺王成, 梁国华, 罗冰, 田英, 李晓丹, 肖晴, 毛曼, 区晓雯, 耿文艳. 枸橼酸钠抗凝比例及校正采血量分别对正常人和贫血患者血栓弹力图试验结果的影响[J/OL]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2024, 12(01): 22-26.
[13]	牟磊, 徐东成, 韩鑫, 徐长江, 韩坤锜, 薛叶潇, 牟媛, 秦文玲, 刘相静, 陈哲, 高楠. 五虫通络胶囊防治椎动脉开口支架术后再狭窄发生的效果[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 467-472.
[14]	周雅萍, 洪月慧, 苏宁, 刘暴, 朱铁楠, 倪俊. 脑淀粉样血管病合并易栓状态的临床治疗决策[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 338-344.
[15]	李芳, 戴西望, 王凯, 郭廷昊, 涂江龙. 非瓣膜性心房颤动相关性卒中的治疗研究进展[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 393-397.

阅读次数

全文

摘要

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Percutaneous transluminal stenting in treatment of central venous stenosis: analysis of 29 patients

模态框（Modal）标题

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Percutaneous transluminal stenting in treatment of central venous stenosis: analysis of 29 patients