Abstract
目的
颈动脉粥样硬化斑块内炎症反应与脑血管事件的发生密切相关,研究表明利用超声造影技术可以评估斑块内的炎症水平,但尚无与病理学相关的研究。本研究应用超声造影评估颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)患者斑块内炎症水平并分析超声造影参数与临床症状及组织病理的相关性。
方法
选取中南大学湘雅三医院神经外科拟行CEA的患者54例,其中3例患者双侧颈动脉均行CEA,共有57个目标斑块。根据中华医学会颈动脉狭窄诊治指南将患者分为症状组(33例)与无症状组(21例)。所有患者术前均行颈动脉斑块超声造影晚期增强(late-phase contrast-enhanced ultrasound,LP-CEUS)检查,应用定量分析观察斑块晚期增强程度及晚期相对增强强度比。术后对颈动脉斑块进行CD68组织病理学检测,观察斑块内巨噬细胞的情况,计算巨噬细胞浸润个数,采用Pearson相关分析探讨超声造影参数与临床症状及组织病理的相关性。
结果
症状组斑块晚期增强强度及晚期相对增强强度比均明显高于非症状组,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。症状组斑块内巨噬细胞个数明显多于非症状组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。斑块晚期增强强度和晚期相对增强强度比均与巨噬细胞个数呈正相关(分别r=0.69,r=0.65,均P<0.05)。
结论
LP-CEUS参数有助于评估颈动脉斑块内的炎症水平;有症状的患者斑块内炎症细胞浸润程度高于无症状的患者。
Keywords: 动脉粥样硬化, 超声造影晚期增强, 脑卒中
Abstract
Objective
Inflammation in carotid atherosclerotic plaques is closely related to the occurrence of cerebrovascular events. Studies have shown that the use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound technology can assess the level of inflammation in the plaques, but there is no pathological-relevant research. In this study, contrast-enhanced ultrasound was used to assess the level of inflammation in the plaques of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and to discuss the correlation among ultrasound parameters and clinical symptoms and histopathology.
Methods
Fifty-four patients were selected to receive CEA due to carotid artery stenosis in Department of Neurosurgery, Third Xiangya Hospital, among which 3 patients received CEA surgery for bilateral carotid artery. The patients were divided into a symptomatic group (33 cases) and an asymptomatic group (21 cases) according to the diagnosis and treatment guideline of carotid stenosis of Chinese Medical Association. All patients received late-phase contrast-enhanced ultrasound (LP-CEUS) examination, and quantitative analysis was applied to observe the intensity of late-phase plaque enhancement and the relative intensity ratio of late-phase plaque enhancement. CD68 histopathological examination was performed on carotid artery plaque after surgery, the number of macrophage infiltration was calculated, and the correlation between ultrasound parameters and histopathology was analyzed by Pearson correlation.
Results
The intensity of late-phase plaque enhancement and the relative intensity ratio of late-phase plaque enhancement in the symptomatic group were significantly higher than those in the asymptomatic group, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05). The number of macrophages in the plaque in the symptom group was significantly higher than that in the asymptomatic group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The intensity of late-phase enhancement and the relative intensity of late-phase plaque enhancement were positively correlated with the number of macrophages (r=0.69, r=0.65, respectively, both P<0.05).
Conclusion
The parameters of LP-CEUS are helpful in assessing inflammation in carotid plaque. The degree of macrophage infiltration in plaque of patients with symptoms was higher than that of asymptomatic patients.
Keywords: atherosclerosis, late-phase contrast-enhanced ultrasound, ischemic stroke
脑卒中是我国成年人致死、致残的首位病因,其发病率、患病率、复发率、病死率持续上升并且有年轻化趋势,脑卒中防治依然面临巨大挑战[1]。颈动脉粥样硬化斑块的形成、破裂与脑血管事件的发生密切相关,而斑块内的炎症反应在此过程中起重要作用[2]。超声造影已经被广泛应用于颈动脉斑块的研究中,近年来国内外的研究[3-4]表明脑卒中患者颈动脉斑块超声造影晚期增强(late-phase contrast-enhanced ultrasound,LP-CEUS)特点与非脑卒中患者差异明显。本研究以拟行颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)的患者为研究对象,旨在探讨颈动脉斑块LP-CEUS特点与斑块内巨噬细胞数目的相关性,进一步明确LP-CEUS技术在评估颈动脉粥样硬化斑块炎症水平中的作用,为颈动脉斑块患者的临床诊疗提供帮助。
1. 对象与方法
1.1. 对象
收集2019年5月至2020年5月中南大学湘雅三医院神经外科住院并拟行CEA的患者54例,其中男40例,女14例。CEA的绝对指征:影像学无创检查发现病变处狭窄度≥70%或血管造影明确病变处狭窄度≥50%的症状性颈动脉狭窄患者。CEA相对指征:1)影像学无创检查发现病变处狭窄度≥70%或血管造影明确病变处狭窄度≥60%的无症状性颈动脉狭窄患者;2)影像学无创检查发现病变处狭窄度<70%,但通过评估属于不稳定状态的无症状性颈动脉狭窄患者;3)影像学无创检查发现病变处狭窄度处于50%~69%的症状性颈动脉狭窄患者。排除标准:1)重要脏器严重受损无法耐受手术者[5];2)1年内发生过脑出血的患者;3)1个月内发生过大面积的急性心肌梗死或脑卒中的患者;4)颈动脉慢性完全闭塞的无症状患者;5)术前3个月内有进展性脑卒中的患者;6)对超声造影剂过敏及无法耐受麻醉者。依据中华医学会颈动脉狭窄诊治指南将入选的54例患者分成症状组(n=33)和无症状组(n=21)。症状组患者在CEA前6个月内出现过一过性黑矇、短暂性脑缺血发作等神经症状;无症状组患者在CEA前6个月内未出现颈动脉相关的神经系统症状和脑血管疾病或只表现为轻度头痛或头晕症状[5]。所有患者受检前均签署知情同意书。
1.2. 设备
采用美国GE LOGIQ E9彩色多普勒超声诊断仪(9L探头,频率6~9 MHz),仪器配有时间强度曲线(time-intensity curve,TIC)分析程序。
1.3. 方法
1.3.1. 一般临床资料收集
收集所有患者的个人信息,包括入选者的性别、年龄、体重指数;既往史及个人史;是否患有冠状动脉粥样硬化、高血压、糖尿病、高血脂;有无吸烟史等。2次住院行CEA的患者,记录其第1次入院时的临床资料。
1.3.2. 超声造影及图像分析
参照Owen等[4, 6-7]的方法,用5 mL的生理盐水溶解超声造影剂(Sonovue),于肘外周静脉团注2 mL造影剂,再快速注入5 mL生理盐水冲管。注入造影剂6 min后,于最大纵切面观察目标斑块10 s,启动FLASH键,将其存储于彩色多普勒超声诊断仪硬盘内以便后续分析(图1)。双侧颈动脉拟行CEA的患者,为避免造影剂干扰,在一侧颈动脉造影结束 15 min后,再进行对侧目标斑块的颈动脉造影检查。TIC定量分析:根据目标斑块的大小和形状手动描绘斑块的感兴趣区(region of interest,ROI),于斑块近心端的颈动脉管腔内描绘一直径约为2 mm的圆形ROI作为管腔参考区,软件自动生成斑块晚期增强值或管腔增强值,造影剂未进入斑块前的值为斑块基础强度值。斑块晚期增强强度=斑块晚期增强值-基础强度值;斑块晚期增强强度与管腔增强值的比值,即为斑块晚期相对增强强度比。
图1.
超声造影晚期增强的闪烁成像
Figure 1 Flash image of late-phase contrast-enhanced ultrasound
A: Two-dimensional image. B: Angiogram before flash, a small amount of contrast agent can be seen in the carotid artery. C: Angiogram after flash, the dot contrast agent can be seen in the plaque (red arrow).
1.3.3. 组织病理学检查
对术中取得的颈动脉斑块标本进行脱钙、固定、石蜡包埋、切片、HE染色及CD68免疫组织化学染色。通过CD68免疫组织化学检测标记斑块内的巨噬细胞,计算斑块内巨噬细胞个数(图2)。
图2.

光镜下可见大量巨噬细胞(红色箭头)(CD68免疫组织化学染色,×400)
Figure 2 Large numbers of macrophages (red arrow) are seen under the light microscope (CD68 immunohistochemical staining, ×400)
1.4. 统计学处理
应用SPSS 25.0统计软件对数据进行分析。采用Kolmogorov-Smirnov(K-S)检验对计量资料进行正态分布检验,若符合正态分布,则采用均数±标准差( ±s)表示,2组比较采用两独立样本t检验;若不符合正态分布,则采用中位数(第1四分位数,第3四分位数)[M(P 25, P 75)]表示,2组比较采用秩和检验。计数资料用率表示,2组比较采用χ 2检验;相关性分析采用Pearson相关分析。以P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。
2. 结 果
2.1. 一般临床资料
症状组和无症状组均以男性患者居多(>70%),均有较高的高血压患病率(>60%)及高血脂患病率 (>60%),2组在年龄、性别、体重指数、冠心病患病率、高血压患病率、糖尿病患病率、高血脂患病率、是否吸烟及既往是否服用过他汀类药物方面比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05,表1)。
表1.
2组临床资料比较
Table 1 Comparison of clinical characteristics between the 2 groups
| 组别 | n | 年龄/岁 | 男/[例(%)] |
BMI/ (kg·m-2) |
冠心病/ [例(%)] |
高血压/ [例(%)] |
糖尿病/ [例(%)] |
吸烟/ [例/(%)] |
高血脂/ [例/(%)] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 症状组 | 33 | 65.55±6.69 | 25(75.7) | 23.28±2.68 | 10(30.3) | 23(69.7) | 13(36.4) | 11(39.4) | 21(63.6) |
| 无症状组 | 21 | 63.81±10.25 | 15(71.4) | 23.87±2.49 | 7(33.3) | 13(61.9) | 6(28.6) | 6(28.6) | 13(61.9) |
2.2. 超声造影参数
54例患者(3例患者两侧颈动脉均行CEA,均为症状组患者)共有57条颈动脉行CEA,共计目标斑块57个。
根据LP-CEUS定量分析,症状组斑块晚期增强强度为(5.56±1.96) dB,斑块晚期相对增强强度比为0.74±0.20;无症状组斑块晚期增强强度为(4.14±1.89) dB,斑块晚期相对增强强度比为0.61±0.22。症状组与无症状组的斑块晚期增强强度及斑块晚期相对增强强度比比较,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。
2.3. 组织病理学参数
CD68免疫组织化学染色显示:症状组斑块内巨噬细胞个数为33.67±12.59,无症状组巨噬细胞个数为22.90±9.33,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。Pearson相关分析表明:斑块晚期增强强度与巨噬细胞个数呈正相关(r=0.69,P<0.05),斑块晚期相对增强强度比与巨噬细胞个数呈正相关(r=0.65,P<0.05)。
3. 讨 论
动脉粥样硬化属于一种慢性炎症性疾病,巨噬细胞在斑块的发生和发展过程中扮演重要角色[8]。巨噬细胞造成斑块不稳定的机制主要有:1)活化的巨噬细胞通过分泌基质金属蛋白酶以及诱导平滑肌细胞凋亡,降低纤维帽及动脉壁的机械强度;2)吞噬大量脂蛋白颗粒的巨噬细胞死亡,释放大量脂质过氧化物,促进脂质核心扩大与炎症反应;3)分泌大量促血管因子诱导新生血管形成,加速巨噬细胞进入斑块;4)在斑块破裂的过程中,巨噬细胞分泌的组织因子暴露,启动血栓形成;5)将外源性抗原呈递给T细胞启动获得性免疫应答,加速动脉粥样硬化斑块破裂[9-11]。研究[8]表明具有巨噬细胞缺陷的高胆固醇小鼠发生动脉粥样硬化风险显著下降,因此,巨噬细胞被认为是动脉粥样硬化发展中的关键因素。本研究通过CD68免疫组织化学检测发现症状组患者巨噬细胞个数明显多于无症状组,进一步证明症状组颈动脉斑块内的炎症细胞较无症状组丰富,症状组患者的斑块更不稳定。
PET/CT和MRI可以很好地反映斑块内炎症特征,但是存在操作复杂、成本高和辐射暴露等问题;超声造影操作简便,在静脉注射几分钟后即可获得高质量图像,便于临床操作。Lindner等[12]研究表明:在超声造影过程中,微泡可以与巨噬细胞持久而紧密结合,并且可以反映炎性疾病中巨噬细胞的黏附;在附着于活化的巨噬细胞后,微泡被完整地吞噬,被吞噬的微泡仍然可以反射超声波,并且可以在自由循环中的微泡廓清后被监测到[13]。临床研究[4, 14]表明症状组患者颈动脉斑块晚期增强强度较无症状组明显增高,这与本研究的结果相符。但是在本研究中,术后病理组织CD68免疫组织化学证实,颈动脉斑块晚期增强强度与巨噬细胞个数呈正相关,提示颈动脉斑块晚期增强强度可能有助于量化颈动脉斑块内的炎症水平。此外,本研究还采用了晚期相对增强强度比来评估患者斑块内炎症水平,结果表明斑块晚期增强强度及斑块晚期相对增强强度比均为反映斑块内炎症水平的良好参数。
本研究的不足:1)样本量较小,尤其是无症状组患者较少;2)对于颈动脉有多个斑块的患者,仅观察和分析了目标斑块,但这可能不是“犯罪”斑块;3)仅观察了斑块的一个切面,未能全面评估斑块的造影增强情况。
综上所述,LP-CEUS参数有助于评估颈动脉斑块内的炎症水平;有症状的患者斑块内炎症水平高于无症状患者;LP-CEUS技术可以在一定程度上评估颈动脉斑块的炎症水平,有助于临床诊治。
基金资助
湖南省卫生和计划生育委员会项目(C2017006)。
This work was supported by the Project of Health and Family Planning Commission of Hunan Province, China (C2017006).
利益冲突声明
作者声称无任何利益冲突。
原文网址
http://xbyxb.csu.edu.cn/xbwk/fileup/PDF/2021121375.pdf
参考文献
- 1. 王陇德, 刘建民, 杨弋, 等. 我国脑卒中防治仍面临巨大挑战: 《中国脑卒中防治报告2018》概要[J]. 中国循环杂志, 2019, 34(2): 105-119. [Google Scholar]; WANG Longde, LIU Jianmin, YANG Yi, et al. The prevention and treatment of stroke still face huge challenges—brief report on stroke prevention and treatment in China, 2018[J]. Chinese Circulation Journal, 2019, 34(2): 105-119. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Weissberg PL, Bennett MR. Atherosclerosis—an inflammatory disease[J]. N Engl J Med, 1999, 340(24): 1928-1929. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. 张艳明, 宋则周, 傅燕飞, 等. 超声造影评估脑梗死患者颈动脉斑块晚期增强的价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2015, 12(11): 869-873. [Google Scholar]; ZHANG Yanming, SONG Zezhou, FU Yanfei, et al. The value of late-phase enhancement of carotid artery plaques in patients with cerebral infarction by contrast-enhanced ultrasonography[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound. Electronic Edition, 2015, 12(11): 869-873. [Google Scholar]
- 4. Owen DR, Shalhoub J, Miller S, et al. Inflammation within carotid atherosclerotic plaque: assessment with late-phase contrast-enhanced US[J]. Radiology, 2010, 255(2): 638-644. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. 中华医学会外科学分会血管外科学组 . 颈动脉狭窄诊治指南[J/OL]. 中国血管外科杂志(电子版), 2017, 2(2): 78-84. [2019-02-27]. https://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/periodical/ChlQZXJpb2RpY2FsQ0hJTmV3UzIwMjExMTMwEhF6Z3hnd2t6ejIwMTcwMzAwMxoIamZhd2F3MWM%3D. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2096-1863.2017.02.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]; Vascular Surgery Group, Surgery Branch of Chinese Medical Association . Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of carotid stenosis[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Vascular Surgery. Electronic Version, 2017, 2(2): 78-84. [2019-02-27]. https://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/periodical/ChlQZXJpb2RpY2FsQ0hJTmV3UzIwMjExMTMwEhF6Z3hnd2t6ejIwMTcwMzAwMxoIamZhd2F3MWM%3D. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2096-1863.2017.02.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Iezzi R, Petrone G, Ferrante A, et al. The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in visualizing atherosclerotic carotid plaque vulnerability: which injection protocol? Which scanning technique?[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2015, 84(5): 865-871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Ozawa K, Lindner JR. Ultrasound molecular imaging: insights into cardiovascular pathology[J]. J Echocardiogr, 2020, 18(2): 86-93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Moroni F, Ammirati E, Norata GD, et al. The role of monocytes and macrophages in human atherosclerosis, plaque neoangiogenesis, and atherothrombosis[J]. Mediators Inflamm, 2019, 2019: 7434376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Bobryshev YV, Ivanova EA, Chistiakov DA, et al. Macrophages and their role in atherosclerosis: Pathophysiology and transcriptome analysis[J]. Biomed Res Int, 2016, 2016: 9582430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Kolodgie FD, Yahagi K, Mori H, et al. High-risk carotid plaque: lessons learned from histopathology[J]. Semin Vasc Surg, 2017, 30(1): 31-43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Chistiakov DA, Orekhov AN, Bobryshev YV. Contribution of neovascularization and intraplaque haemorrhage to atherosclerotic plaque progression and instability[J]. Acta Physiol (Oxf), 2015, 213(3): 539-553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Lindner JR, Coggins MP, Kaul S, et al. Microbubble persistence in the microcirculation during ischemia/reperfusion and inflammation is caused by integrin- and complement-mediated adherence to activated leukocytes[J]. Circulation, 2000, 101(6): 668-675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Lindner JR, Dayton PA, Coggins MP, et al. Noninvasive imaging of inflammation by ultrasound detection of phagocytosed microbubbles[J]. Circulation, 2000, 102(5): 531-538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Shalhoub J, Monaco C, Owen DR, et al. Late-phase contrast-enhanced ultrasound reflects biological features of instability in human carotid atherosclerosis[J]. Stroke, 2011, 42(12): 3634-3636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

