BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has become an alternative modality to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of carotid occlusive disease. We report a retrospective review of our institution's experience with CAS versus CEA. METHODS: Postprocedure surveillance duplex, recurrent symptoms, postprocedure strokes, progression of lesions, and rates of re-operation were analyzed in 46 patients who underwent CAS and 48 patients who underwent CEA. The mean length of follow-up evaluation was 13 months. All CAS procedures included neuroprotection devices. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in progression to critical restenosis (2% vs 2%, P = 1.0), rate of subsequent symptoms or stroke (2% vs 10%, P = .1), or rate of re-interventions were not observed between CAS and CEA groups (2% vs 4%, P = .98). Total mortality (0% vs 2%, P = .33), and the occurrence of major adverse events (2% vs 10%, P = .18) also were not significantly different in the CAS compared with the CEA patients. The average rate of increase in internal carotid velocity at 6 to 12 months (-1% vs 1.1%, P = NS) and 12 to 24 months (-5% vs -6.5%, P = NS) also were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: Our observed results indicate that CAS may be performed with comparable clinical outcomes and durability of repair comparable with CEA.
BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has become an alternative modality to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of carotid occlusive disease. We report a retrospective review of our institution's experience with CAS versus CEA. METHODS: Postprocedure surveillance duplex, recurrent symptoms, postprocedure strokes, progression of lesions, and rates of re-operation were analyzed in 46 patients who underwent CAS and 48 patients who underwent CEA. The mean length of follow-up evaluation was 13 months. All CAS procedures included neuroprotection devices. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in progression to critical restenosis (2% vs 2%, P = 1.0), rate of subsequent symptoms or stroke (2% vs 10%, P = .1), or rate of re-interventions were not observed between CAS and CEA groups (2% vs 4%, P = .98). Total mortality (0% vs 2%, P = .33), and the occurrence of major adverse events (2% vs 10%, P = .18) also were not significantly different in the CAS compared with the CEA patients. The average rate of increase in internal carotid velocity at 6 to 12 months (-1% vs 1.1%, P = NS) and 12 to 24 months (-5% vs -6.5%, P = NS) also were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: Our observed results indicate that CAS may be performed with comparable clinical outcomes and durability of repair comparable with CEA.