颈内动脉狭窄或闭塞侧支循环途径的DSA和MR血管成像研究

Internal carotid artery stenosis or occlusion: study of collateral circulation pathways on DSA and MRA

目的 研究DSA、MR血管成像 (MRA)对颈内动脉狭窄或闭塞后侧支循环途径评价的意义。方法 颈内动脉狭窄或闭塞者 74例 ,DSA和MRA上脑血管正常表现者各 6 0例为对照组 ,分析其DSA和MRA表现。结果 74例患者均有颈内动脉分叉以上狭窄或闭塞。病变同侧后交通动脉在DSA上的出现率 ,疾病组低于对照组 (P =0 0 2 5 ) ;在时间飞跃 (TOF)法MRA上的出现率 ,疾病组明显高于对照组 (P =0 0 0 0 )。后交通动脉DSA、MRA测量值均较对照组增大 (P =0 0 0 0 )。眼动脉直径DSA测量值较对照组增大 (P =0 0 0 3)。疾病组后交通动脉出现率在DSA上高于MRA (P <0 0 5 )。结论 DSA对本病侧支途径评价有重要意义 ,为术前必要检查。MRA安全 ,可从形态和功能上评价侧支循环 。

Objectives To evaluate the collateral pathways of internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis or occlusion on digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), and to compare these two methods in the study for collateral pathways. Methods Seventy-four patients with ICA stenosis or occlusion were included as the study group. Sixty persons with normal findings on DSA or MRA each served as the control group. DSA, MRA, MRI, CT findings, and clinicall materials were analyzed in the two groups. Results Stenosis or occlusion over ICA bifurcation was showed clearly in all patients on DSA or MRA. On DSA, the presence rate of ipsilateral posterior communicating artery (PCoA) in the study group (82.5%) was lower significantly than that of the control group (94.2%) (P=0.025). On MRA (3D-TOF), the rate in the study group (59.3%) was higher significantly than that of the controls (30.0%) (P=0.000). On DSA and MRA, the diameter of ipsilateral PCoA in the study group was larger than that of the control group (P=0.000). On DSA, the presence rate of OPhA in the study group was significantly different from that of the control group, and its diameter was larger than that of the control group (P=0.003). On MRA, its presence rate was lower than that of the control group. The presence rate of anterior communicating artery (ACoA) in the study group showed no statistical difference between DSA and MRA. In the study group, the presence rate of PCoA on DSA was significantly higher than that on MRA ((P<0.05), and) that of OPhA, AcoA, and leptomeningeal anastomosis showed no significant difference between DSA and MRA (P>0.05). The diameters of the three arteries showed no significant differences between DSA and MRA (P>0.05). Conclusion DSA is highly valuable for the evaluation of collateral pathways of ICA stenosis or occlusion, and it is necessary for preoperative examination. MRA is a non-invasive angiographic method and can evaluate collateral circulation in both morphology and function, and can be the preferred method for the disease.