OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the predictors of restenosis after carotid artery stenting and report alternatives for its management. BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting has been increasingly accepted as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Predictors of carotid stent restenosis have not been firmly established, and management of restenotic lesions can be challenging. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center review was conducted of 399 carotid stent procedures in 363 patients over 9 years, with a mean follow-up of 24 months (range 6-99 months). Clinical variables included age, gender, symptoms, hypertension, diabetes, tobacco use, renal insufficiency, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidemia, peripheral vascular disease, history of CEA, and history of neck radiation (XRT). Angiographic variables included reference vessel diameter, lesion length, post-stenting residual stenosis, stent diameter, type of stent, and number of stents. RESULTS: Overall, restenosis occurred in 15 patients (3.8%). However, the restenosis occurred in 7 of 35 (20%) patients who had previous XRT, 6 of 57 (10.5%) patients who had previous CEA, and 2 of 9 (22%) patients who previously had both CEA and XRT. The only analyzed variables that were significantly associated with an increased risk of restenosis were previous CEA (OR 4.28, P = 0.008) or XRT (OR 11.3, P <or=<or= 0.0001). Restenosis was most often asymptomatic and detected at routine ultrasound follow-up. Restenotic lesions were successfully treated in 11/11 cases with angioplasty (27%) or stenting (73%). Four patients that are asymptomatic are being monitored closely with ultrasound. No patients required surgical therapy for restenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Restenosis after carotid stenting is uncommon; however, patients with previous CEA or XRT are at increased risk. Restenotic lesions may be safely treated with further percutaneous interventions.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the predictors of restenosis after carotid artery stenting and report alternatives for its management. BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting has been increasingly accepted as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Predictors of carotid stent restenosis have not been firmly established, and management of restenotic lesions can be challenging. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center review was conducted of 399 carotid stent procedures in 363 patients over 9 years, with a mean follow-up of 24 months (range 6-99 months). Clinical variables included age, gender, symptoms, hypertension, diabetes, tobacco use, renal insufficiency, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidemia, peripheral vascular disease, history of CEA, and history of neck radiation (XRT). Angiographic variables included reference vessel diameter, lesion length, post-stenting residual stenosis, stent diameter, type of stent, and number of stents. RESULTS: Overall, restenosis occurred in 15 patients (3.8%). However, the restenosis occurred in 7 of 35 (20%) patients who had previous XRT, 6 of 57 (10.5%) patients who had previous CEA, and 2 of 9 (22%) patients who previously had both CEA and XRT. The only analyzed variables that were significantly associated with an increased risk of restenosis were previous CEA (OR 4.28, P = 0.008) or XRT (OR 11.3, P <or=<or= 0.0001). Restenosis was most often asymptomatic and detected at routine ultrasound follow-up. Restenotic lesions were successfully treated in 11/11 cases with angioplasty (27%) or stenting (73%). Four patients that are asymptomatic are being monitored closely with ultrasound. No patients required surgical therapy for restenosis. CONCLUSIONS:Restenosis after carotid stenting is uncommon; however, patients with previous CEA or XRT are at increased risk. Restenotic lesions may be safely treated with further percutaneous interventions.
Authors: Rodney A White; Gregorio A Sicard; Robert M Zwolak; Anton N Sidawy; Marc L Schermerhorn; Rebecca J Shackelton; Flora Sandra Siami Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2010-03-27 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Jai Jai Shiva Shankar; Jingwen Zhang; Marlise dos Santos; Howard Lesiuk; Ravi Mohan; Cheemun Lum Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2012-04-21 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Damon S Pierce; Eric B Rosero; J Gregory Modrall; Beverley Adams-Huet; R James Valentine; G Patrick Clagett; Carlos H Timaran Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 4.268
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