背景:头颈动脉夹层(CADs)发生在所有年龄段的每100,000人中有3例。在13%至22%的病例中发现了多个同时发生的CAD,和三个或更多的解剖发生在大约2%。CADs可能是由血管壁完整性的多因素内在缺陷和外在因素引起的,例如,轻微的创伤.
方法:一位年轻的绅士出现在急诊科,突然出现了周围的旋转感,左侧手臂无力,视觉模糊,NIHSS得分为4分。头部和颅内血管造影的紧急CT扫描显示,颈内动脉(ICAs)远端宫颈段的双侧严重狭窄和V2段的右椎动脉中度狭窄。他在4.5小时内接受了IVTPA(阿替普酶)治疗。4小时后,患者的GCS从15降至10,NIHSS评分从4分提高至24分,随后出现了全身性强直阵挛性发作.重复紧急CT头颅显示没有脑出血(ICH)的证据。患者被安排进行脑血管造影导管检查,显示双侧火焰状宫颈ICA夹层闭塞。右颈椎动脉有轻度局灶性狭窄,可能是解剖。血管炎的常规实验室血液检查为阴性。在MICU入院期间,他曾亲眼目睹右臂半球症频谱异常运动。第6个月随访后,颅内CT血管造影显示,颈内动脉双侧远端颈段的口径减小,伴有残余夹层和右侧ICA的局灶性外袋,代表假性动脉瘤。
结论:多个CADs的发生提示存在潜在的内在动脉病变,比如口蹄疫,假性动脉瘤的存在,环境触发因素,子宫颈手法,和遥远的头部或颈部手术史。对最广泛的颈动脉夹层患者进行的一项研究显示,有15.2%的患者患有多发性CAD。在大多数患有多发性颈动脉夹层的患者中,抗血栓治疗是有效的,完全再通,结果是有利的。在急性缺血性中风的窗口期之外,抗凝或抗血小板治疗是一种公认的预防颅外动脉夹层继发缺血性卒中的治疗方法.对于颅内动脉夹层引起的急性中风或TIA患者,专家建议抗血小板治疗而不是抗凝治疗。
结论:同时三血管颈头颅动脉夹层很少报道。多个CADs与潜在的血管病变和环境触发因素有关,大多数患者通过抗血栓治疗再通,结果良好.抗血栓治疗对大多数患有多种CADs的患者有效,大多数人期望完全重新血管化。此病例报告指导医师治疗和转归由多发性CAD引起的急性卒中。
BACKGROUND: Cervicocephalic arterial dissections (CADs) occur in 3 cases per 100,000 individuals across all ages. Multiple simultaneous CADs are found in 13 to 22% of cases, and three or more dissections occur in approximately 2%. CADs might result from multifactorial intrinsic deficiencies of vessel wall integrity and extrinsic factors, e.g., minor trauma.
METHODS: A young gentleman presented to the emergency department with a sudden onset of a spinning sensation of surrounding, left side arm weakness, blurring of vision, and an NIHSS score of 4. An urgent CT scan of the head and intracranial angiogram showed bilateral severe stenosis of the distal cervical segment of internal carotid arteries (ICAs) and right vertebral artery moderate stenosis at the V2 segment. He had been given IV TPA (Alteplase) within the 4.5-hour window. After 4 hours, the patient\'s GCS dropped from 15 to 10, and the NIHSS score increased from 4 to 24, followed by witnessed a generalized tonic-clonic seizure. Repeat urgent CT head showed no evidence of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). The patient was arranged for cerebral angiographic catheterization that showed bilateral flame-shaped occlusion of cervical ICA dissection. There is a mild focal narrowing of the right cervical vertebral artery, likely dissection. Routine laboratory blood workup for vasculitis was negative. During MICU admission, he had witnessed the right arm hemichorea-ballism spectrum abnormal movement. After the 6th-month follow-up, intracranial CT angiogram showed reduced caliber of the bilateral distal cervical course of the internal carotid arteries seen with residual dissection and focal outpouching of the right ICA representing pseudoaneurysm.
CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of multiple CADs suggests the presence of an underlying intrinsic arteriopathy, such as FMD, the presence of pseudoaneurysm, environmental triggers, cervical manipulation, and remote history of head or neck surgery. A study of the most extensive case series of patients with cervical artery dissection showed 15.2% of patients with multiple CAD. In most patients with multiple cervical artery dissections, antithrombotic treatment is effective, complete recanalization, and the outcome is favorable. Outside the window period of acute ischemic stroke, either anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy is a recognized treatment for secondary ischemic stroke prevention due to extracranial artery dissection. For acute stroke or TIA patients caused by intracranial artery dissection, experts recommend antiplatelet therapy rather than anticoagulation.
CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous triple-vessel cervicocephalic arterial dissections are rarely reported condition. Multiple CADs are associated with underlying vasculopathy and environmental triggers, and a majority are recanalized with antithrombotic treatment with favorable outcomes. Antithrombotic treatment is effective in most patients with multiple CADs, and most expect complete recanalization. This case report guides physicians in the treatment and outcome of acute stroke due to multiple CAD.