PURPOSE: This study aims to review the incidence of in-stent restenosis (ISR), the factors which determine restenosis, and to evaluate the use of various endovascular techniques for the management of ISR following carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: Four hundred and seven patients (334 men, mean age 63 years, range 46-86, median 65 years) were treated with CAS between December 2000 and March 2004. Three hundred and seventy-two (89%) patients had at least one ultrasound evaluation performed 6 months after procedure (range 6-40). Recurrent stenosis >80% detected with duplex ultrasound scans were further evaluated by angiography and treated with repeat endovascular procedure. RESULTS: CAS was performed successfully in all cases with a Carotid WallStent (Boston Scientific) using a cerebral protection device (filter). Perioperative complications included four (0.9%) minor and two (0.4%) major strokes these latter two patients died at 5 and 12 days after the operation. No other deaths occurred. A total of 15 carotid arteries (3.6%) in 14 patients had ISR. All ISR were treated with a repeat endovascular procedure: three balloon angioplasty alone, eight angioplasty and secondary stenting, four angioplasty with cutting balloon. Postsurgical restenosis was confirmed to be the only predictive factor for the development of in-stent restenosis (OR 14.5, 95% CI 2.3-113.4, p=0.005). Endovascular treatment of ISR achieved technical success without periprocedurale complications and the absence of significant restenosis over a median follow up time of 12.4 months (range 3.5-30.7). CONCLUSION: Our experience with a large cohort of CAS showed an encouragingly low incidence of ISR (3.6%) and successful treatment by repeat endovascular intervention. We recommend attempting all endovascular possibilities before performing stent removal.
PURPOSE: This study aims to review the incidence of in-stent restenosis (ISR), the factors which determine restenosis, and to evaluate the use of various endovascular techniques for the management of ISR following carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: Four hundred and seven patients (334 men, mean age 63 years, range 46-86, median 65 years) were treated with CAS between December 2000 and March 2004. Three hundred and seventy-two (89%) patients had at least one ultrasound evaluation performed 6 months after procedure (range 6-40). Recurrent stenosis >80% detected with duplex ultrasound scans were further evaluated by angiography and treated with repeat endovascular procedure. RESULTS:CAS was performed successfully in all cases with a Carotid WallStent (Boston Scientific) using a cerebral protection device (filter). Perioperative complications included four (0.9%) minor and two (0.4%) major strokes these latter two patients died at 5 and 12 days after the operation. No other deaths occurred. A total of 15 carotid arteries (3.6%) in 14 patients had ISR. All ISR were treated with a repeat endovascular procedure: three balloon angioplasty alone, eight angioplasty and secondary stenting, four angioplasty with cutting balloon. Postsurgical restenosis was confirmed to be the only predictive factor for the development of in-stent restenosis (OR 14.5, 95% CI 2.3-113.4, p=0.005). Endovascular treatment of ISR achieved technical success without periprocedurale complications and the absence of significant restenosis over a median follow up time of 12.4 months (range 3.5-30.7). CONCLUSION: Our experience with a large cohort of CAS showed an encouragingly low incidence of ISR (3.6%) and successful treatment by repeat endovascular intervention. We recommend attempting all endovascular possibilities before performing stent removal.
Authors: C Sakai; N Sakai; T Okada; T Kuroiwa; H Ishihara; A Morizane; T Yano; H Kikuchi Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2006-06-15 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Kevin Brown; Dina S Itum; Joshua Preiss; Yazan Duwayri; Ravi K Veeraswamy; Atef Salam; Thomas F Dodson; Luke P Brewster Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2014-07-23 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Grant C Sorkin; Travis M Dumont; Jorge L Eller; Maxim Mokin; L Nelson Hopkins; Kenneth V Snyder; Adnan H Siddiqui; Elad I Levy Journal: J Vasc Interv Neurol Date: 2014-05
Authors: Runqi Wangqin; Paul R Krafft; Keaton Piper; Jay Kumar; Kaya Xu; Maxim Mokin; Zeguang Ren Journal: Transl Stroke Res Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 6.829
Authors: Marc W K Tietke; Tina Kerby; Karsten Alfke; Christian Riedel; Axel Rohr; Ulf Jensen; Phillip Zimmermann; Robert Stingele; Olaf Jansen Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2010-03-23 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Kevin A Brown; Dina S Itum; Yazan Duwayri; James G Reeves; Ravi Rajani; Ravi K Veeraswamy; Shipra Arya; Atef Salam; Thomas F Dodson; Luke P Brewster Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 1.466