P Lanzer1, R Weser, C Prettin. 1. Dept. of Cardiology and Angiology, and German Panvascular Centre of Competence, Heart Centre Coswig, Lerchenfeld 1, 06869 Coswig, Germany. PeLanzer@gmx.de
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of carotid-artery stenting (CAS) in high-risk patients in routine clinical settings while excluding the impact of multiple operators and the learning curve of individual operators on the outcome, and to determine the impact of individual risk factors, including vascular multimorbidity, on the outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 143 consecutive patients, 100 (69.9%) males and 43 (30.1%) females, mean age 68.7+/-8 years treated between February 1999 and May 2004 in the Heart Centre Coswig by a single operator for a symptomatic (n=37) and asymptomatic (n=106) on average greater than 70% (82.3+/-10.7%) or 80% (85.0+/-9.1%) NASCET carotid-artery stenosis, respectively, were studied. At least one NASCET exclusion criteria was present in 140 patients (97.9%), and vascular multimorbidity was present in 94 (65.7%) patients. In 28 (19.6%) patients there was a complete occlusion of the contralateral internal carotid artery and in 12 (8.4%) patients the procedure was performed prior to emergency coronary bypass surgery. In all, 47 (32.9%) procedures were performed without and 96 (67.1%) were performed with thromboembolic protection. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Combined neurological complications, TIA, PRIND and stroke, occurred in 5 (3.5%) patients, of which 3 (2.1%) were PRIND and 2 (1.4%) were strokes. The neurological complications were more frequent and more severe in symptomatic patients compared to asymptomatic patients (PRIND 2.7% vs 1.9%; stroke 0% vs 5.4%). In patients in whom thromboembolic protection was used, the rate of neurological complications was lower compared to those without protection (PRIND 1.0% vs 4.3%; stroke 1.0% vs. 2.1%). There was no death related to the procedure. Neurological complications were more frequent and more severe in patients with vascular multimorbidity compared to those with an isolated carotid-artery stenosis (4.2% vs 2.0%). The rate of neurological complications was similar in type II diabetics and nondiabetics (2.9% vs 4.1%). In 4.2%, minor complications related to the arterial puncture site were observed (3.5% hematoma not requiring blood transfusion, 0.7% pseudoaneurysm). At follow-up after a minimum of 6 months, 9 (6.3%) patients had died, the majority of whom had died of cardiovascular disease (3.5%). CONCLUSIONS: CAS can be performed with an acceptable risk in high-risk patients in routine clinical settings when it is performed by an experienced operator. The use of thromboembolic protection devices reduces the risk of neurological complications. Presence of vascular multimorbidity, but not diabetes, appears to increase the risk of all causes and of neurological complications.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of carotid-artery stenting (CAS) in high-risk patients in routine clinical settings while excluding the impact of multiple operators and the learning curve of individual operators on the outcome, and to determine the impact of individual risk factors, including vascular multimorbidity, on the outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 143 consecutive patients, 100 (69.9%) males and 43 (30.1%) females, mean age 68.7+/-8 years treated between February 1999 and May 2004 in the Heart Centre Coswig by a single operator for a symptomatic (n=37) and asymptomatic (n=106) on average greater than 70% (82.3+/-10.7%) or 80% (85.0+/-9.1%) NASCET carotid-artery stenosis, respectively, were studied. At least one NASCET exclusion criteria was present in 140 patients (97.9%), and vascular multimorbidity was present in 94 (65.7%) patients. In 28 (19.6%) patients there was a complete occlusion of the contralateral internal carotid artery and in 12 (8.4%) patients the procedure was performed prior to emergency coronary bypass surgery. In all, 47 (32.9%) procedures were performed without and 96 (67.1%) were performed with thromboembolic protection. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Combined neurological complications, TIA, PRIND and stroke, occurred in 5 (3.5%) patients, of which 3 (2.1%) were PRIND and 2 (1.4%) were strokes. The neurological complications were more frequent and more severe in symptomatic patients compared to asymptomatic patients (PRIND 2.7% vs 1.9%; stroke 0% vs 5.4%). In patients in whom thromboembolic protection was used, the rate of neurological complications was lower compared to those without protection (PRIND 1.0% vs 4.3%; stroke 1.0% vs. 2.1%). There was no death related to the procedure. Neurological complications were more frequent and more severe in patients with vascular multimorbidity compared to those with an isolated carotid-artery stenosis (4.2% vs 2.0%). The rate of neurological complications was similar in type II diabetics and nondiabetics (2.9% vs 4.1%). In 4.2%, minor complications related to the arterial puncture site were observed (3.5% hematoma not requiring blood transfusion, 0.7% pseudoaneurysm). At follow-up after a minimum of 6 months, 9 (6.3%) patients had died, the majority of whom had died of cardiovascular disease (3.5%). CONCLUSIONS: CAS can be performed with an acceptable risk in high-risk patients in routine clinical settings when it is performed by an experienced operator. The use of thromboembolic protection devices reduces the risk of neurological complications. Presence of vascular multimorbidity, but not diabetes, appears to increase the risk of all causes and of neurological complications.
Authors: G S Roubin; G New; S S Iyer; J J Vitek; N Al-Mubarak; M W Liu; J Yadav; C Gomez; R E Kuntz Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-01-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Andreas Kastrup; Klaus Gröschel; Hilmar Krapf; Bernhard R Brehm; Johannes Dichgans; Jörg B Schulz Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-02-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: A Mathur; G S Roubin; S S Iyer; C Piamsonboon; M W Liu; C R Gomez; J S Yadav; H D Chastain; L M Fox; L S Dean; J J Vitek Journal: Circulation Date: 1998-04-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Patrick L Whitlow; Pedro Lylyk; Hugo Londero; Oscar A Mendiz; Klaus Mathias; Horst Jaeger; Juan Parodi; Claudio Schönholz; Jose Milei Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: H J M Barnett; D W Taylor; R B Haynes; D L Sackett; S J Peerless; G G Ferguson; A J Fox; R N Rankin; V C Hachinski; D O Wiebers; M Eliasziw Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-08-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R Zahn; T Ischinger; M Hochadel; B Mark; U Zeymer; J Jung; A Schramm; K E Hauptmann; H Seggewiss; I Janicke; H Mudra; J Senges Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2007-06-27 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Christoph H Spes; Andreas Schwende; Florian Beier; Martin Hug; Ralph Hein; Henning Strohm; Wolfgang Büchele; Mathias C Haufe; Harald Mudra Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2007-08-17 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Suk Jung Kim; Hong Gee Roh; Pyoung Jeon; Keon Ha Kim; Kwang Ho Lee; Hong Sik Byun; Won Jin Moon; Gyeong Moon Kim; Young Wook Kim; Dong Ik Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2007 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.500