Literature DB >> 16890850

Protected carotid stenting in high-surgical-risk patients: the ARCHeR results.

William A Gray1, L Nelson Hopkins, Sanjay Yadav, Thomas Davis, Mark Wholey, Richard Atkinson, Alberto Cremonesi, Ronald Fairman, Gary Walker, Patrick Verta, Jeff Popma, Renu Virmani, David J Cohen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy is the standard of care for most patients with severe extracranial carotid bifurcation disease. However, its safety and efficacy in patients with significant surgical risk are unclear. The ARCHeR (ACCULINK for Revascularization of Carotids in High-Risk patients) trial was performed to determine whether carotid artery stenting with embolic protection is a safe and effective alternative to endarterectomy in high-surgical-risk patients.
METHODS: The ARCHeR trial is a series of three sequential, multicenter, nonrandomized, prospective studies. Forty-eight sites enrolled 581 high-surgical-risk patients between May 2000 and September 2003. Patients with severe carotid artery stenosis (angiographically defined, symptomatic > or =50%, or asymptomatic > or =80%) had an ACCULINK nitinol stent implanted. The ACCUNET filter embolic protection system was added to the procedure in the final 2 studies (422 patients). The primary efficacy end point was a composite of periprocedural (< or =30 days) death, stroke, and myocardial infarction, plus ipsilateral stroke between days 31 and 365.
RESULTS: The 30-day rate of death/stroke/myocardial infarction was 8.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.2%-10.8%), and that of stroke/death was 6.9% (95% CI, 5.0%-9.3%). Most (23/32) strokes were minor, of which more than half (12/23) returned to baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores within 30 days. The 30-day major/fatal stroke rate was 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7%-2.9%). No hemorrhagic strokes were observed in the study. Ipsilateral cerebrovascular accident occurred in 1.3% between 30 days and 1 year, thus giving a primary composite end point of 30-day death/stroke/myocardial infarction plus ipsilateral stroke at 1 year of 9.6% (95% CI, 7.2%-12.0%), which is below the 14.4% historical control comparator. Target lesion revascularization at 12 months and 2 years was 2.2% and 2.9%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The ARCHeR results demonstrate that extracranial carotid artery stenting with embolic filter protection is not inferior to historical results of endarterectomy and suggest that carotid artery stenting is a safe, durable, and effective alternative in high-surgical-risk patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16890850     DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2006.03.044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Surg        ISSN: 0741-5214            Impact factor:   4.268


  54 in total

1.  Hospital resource use following carotid endarterectomy in 2006: analysis of the nationwide inpatient sample.

Authors:  Kate C Young; Babak S Jahromi; Michael J Singh; Karl A Illig; Curtis G Benesch
Journal:  J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 2.136

2.  Carotid artery stenting with distal filter protection: single-center experience in high-surgical-risk patients.

Authors:  Rainer Knur
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2010-10-30       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  Health-related quality of life after carotid stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: results from CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial).

Authors:  David J Cohen; Joshua M Stolker; Kaijun Wang; Elizabeth A Magnuson; Wayne M Clark; Bart M Demaerschalk; Albert D Sam; James R Elmore; Fred A Weaver; Herbert D Aronow; Larry B Goldstein; Gary S Roubin; George Howard; Thomas G Brott
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2011-10-04       Impact factor: 24.094

4.  Hyperperfusion Syndrome after Carotid Artery Stenting.

Authors:  D S Chadha; Navreet Singh; A K Tewari; R S V Kumar; K K Yadav; A J Naveen; Manish Bhartiya; Vijay Kumar Gupta; Amit Wagh; A K Ghosh
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2013-12-16

5.  Carotid angioplasty and stent placement for restenosis after endarterectomy.

Authors:  Yasha Kadkhodayan; Christopher J Moran; Colin P Derdeyn; DeWitte T Cross
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2007-01-17       Impact factor: 2.804

6.  Medicare's policy on carotid stents limited use to hospitals meeting quality guidelines yet did not hurt disadvantaged.

Authors:  Peter W Groeneveld; Andrew J Epstein; Feifei Yang; Lin Yang; Daniel Polsky
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 7.  Carotid stenting for atherothrombosis.

Authors:  Emile R Mohler
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 8.  Carotid endarterectomy versus angioplasty/stenting for carotid stenosis.

Authors:  Kevin M Barrett; Thomas G Brott
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 5.113

9.  Carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis.

Authors:  Mandy D Müller; Philippe Lyrer; Martin M Brown; Leo H Bonati
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-02-25

10.  Clinical significance of embolic events in patients undergoing endovascular femoropopliteal interventions with or without embolic protection devices.

Authors:  Bernardo C Mendes; Gustavo S Oderich; Mark D Fleming; Sanjay Misra; Audra A Duncan; Manju Kalra; Stephen Cha; Peter Gloviczki
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.268

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.