OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of carotid stenting (CS) is no longer questionable, although its indications remain debatable. Until the results of randomized trials are available, personal series and registries should help in the comparison of long-term results of CS with those of endarterectomy. We report here the long-term results of a large series of CS in our department with a long follow-up. This retrospective study reviews a single surgeon's 11-year experience with CS. Our results are compared with those of conventional surgery emanating from our own series and the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET), European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST), and Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: CS has been performed in our department in a single, semi-private institution for 12 years. Patients with high lesions, and postradiotherapy and postendarterectomy stenoses were treated with CS, as were patients at high risk for surgery. The others were operated on with conventional endarterectomy. During the study, we performed 221 CS procedures on 193 patients (150 men and 43 women). The average follow-up was 2.7 years (1 month to 9.3 years). We analyzed the late results in terms of prevention from stroke, the freedom from new neurologic events, and also patency rates of the treated carotid vessels. We also identified predictors for neurologic complication and in-stent restenosis by using univariate analysis. RESULTS: Life-table analyses at 10 years gave a 96% (confidence interval [CI] = 3%) rate for stroke freedom, a 98% (CI = 2%) rate for fatal stroke freedom, and a primary assisted patency rate of 95% (CI = 3%). Predictors for neurologic complication were [corrected] age >70 ( P = .041), and [corrected] potential renal insufficiency ( P = .056 [corrected] In-stent restenosis occurrence extended from 2 months to 4.5 years after the procedure. The restenosis rates at 6 months, 1, 2, and 4.5 years were, respectively, 1.4%, 2.3%, 3.7%, and 5.9% (13/221). No factors were found to be strong predictors of in-stent restenosis [corrected] CONCLUSION: These long-term results show that CS is competitive with conventional surgery. A more accurate selection for CS or surgery might reduce the rate of complications after carotid stenosis repair.
OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of carotid stenting (CS) is no longer questionable, although its indications remain debatable. Until the results of randomized trials are available, personal series and registries should help in the comparison of long-term results of CS with those of endarterectomy. We report here the long-term results of a large series of CS in our department with a long follow-up. This retrospective study reviews a single surgeon's 11-year experience with CS. Our results are compared with those of conventional surgery emanating from our own series and the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET), European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST), and Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS). MATERIALS AND METHODS:CS has been performed in our department in a single, semi-private institution for 12 years. Patients with high lesions, and postradiotherapy and postendarterectomy stenoses were treated with CS, as were patients at high risk for surgery. The others were operated on with conventional endarterectomy. During the study, we performed 221 CS procedures on 193 patients (150 men and 43 women). The average follow-up was 2.7 years (1 month to 9.3 years). We analyzed the late results in terms of prevention from stroke, the freedom from new neurologic events, and also patency rates of the treated carotid vessels. We also identified predictors for neurologic complication and in-stent restenosis by using univariate analysis. RESULTS: Life-table analyses at 10 years gave a 96% (confidence interval [CI] = 3%) rate for stroke freedom, a 98% (CI = 2%) rate for fatal stroke freedom, and a primary assisted patency rate of 95% (CI = 3%). Predictors for neurologic complication were [corrected] age >70 ( P = .041), and [corrected] potential renal insufficiency ( P = .056 [corrected] In-stent restenosis occurrence extended from 2 months to 4.5 years after the procedure. The restenosis rates at 6 months, 1, 2, and 4.5 years were, respectively, 1.4%, 2.3%, 3.7%, and 5.9% (13/221). No factors were found to be strong predictors of in-stent restenosis [corrected] CONCLUSION: These long-term results show that CS is competitive with conventional surgery. A more accurate selection for CS or surgery might reduce the rate of complications after carotid stenosis repair.
Authors: G Simonetti; R Gandini; F Versaci; E Pampana; S Fabiano; M Stefanini; A Spinelli; C A Reale; M Di Primio; E Gaspari Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2008-09-26 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Nina Buchtele; Michael Schwameis; James C Gilbert; Christian Schörgenhofer; Bernd Jilma Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: Adam Mazurek; Krzysztof Malinowski; Kenneth Rosenfield; Laura Capoccia; Francesco Speziale; Gianmarco de Donato; Carlo Setacci; Christian Wissgott; Pasqualino Sirignano; Lukasz Tekieli; Andrey Karpenko; Waclaw Kuczmik; Eugenio Stabile; David Christopher Metzger; Max Amor; Adnan H Siddiqui; Antonio Micari; Piotr Pieniążek; Alberto Cremonesi; Joachim Schofer; Andrej Schmidt; Piotr Musialek Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Leo H Bonati; Jörg Ederle; Dominick J H McCabe; Joanna Dobson; Roland L Featherstone; Peter A Gaines; Jonathan D Beard; Graham S Venables; Hugh S Markus; Andrew Clifton; Peter Sandercock; Martin M Brown Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 44.182