BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous studies compared carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stent placement (CAS) for treatment of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Whereas most previous studies showed both treatment modalities to be associated with a comparable risk of periprocedural cerebrovascular complications, these previous studies have shown significantly more microemboli and significantly more lesions in diffusion-weighted MR imaging after CAS compared to CEA. The clinical relevance of these differences remains unknown. We therefore compared the neuropsychological consequences of CAS and CEA and additionally measured the S100beta protein, a marker of cerebral damage. METHODS: A total of 48 patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis greater than 70 % (according to ECST criteria) were enrolled and 45 patients participated in the follow-up. The patients were randomly assigned for CEA (24 patients) or CAS (21 patients). S100beta protein values were evaluated 2 hours before the procedure, as well as one and two hours thereafter. Patients were assessed before treatment, and again 6 and 30 days after treatment using a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. RESULTS: Patients of the CAS and the CEA groups did not significantly differ in terms of age, gender, education, degree of carotid artery stenosis, cerebrovascular symptoms and vascular risk factors. Following previously used criteria, a cognitive change in patients was assumed to have occurred when there was a decline of more than one standard deviation in two or more tests assessing various cognitive domains. Six days and 30 days after the treatment both groups showed a comparable number of patients with cognitive changes compared to baseline. There were no significant differences in S100beta protein values. CONCLUSION: These results provide some reassurance that CAS is not associated with greater cognitive deterioration than CEA is.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous studies compared carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stent placement (CAS) for treatment of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Whereas most previous studies showed both treatment modalities to be associated with a comparable risk of periprocedural cerebrovascular complications, these previous studies have shown significantly more microemboli and significantly more lesions in diffusion-weighted MR imaging after CAS compared to CEA. The clinical relevance of these differences remains unknown. We therefore compared the neuropsychological consequences of CAS and CEA and additionally measured the S100beta protein, a marker of cerebral damage. METHODS: A total of 48 patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis greater than 70 % (according to ECST criteria) were enrolled and 45 patients participated in the follow-up. The patients were randomly assigned for CEA (24 patients) or CAS (21 patients). S100beta protein values were evaluated 2 hours before the procedure, as well as one and two hours thereafter. Patients were assessed before treatment, and again 6 and 30 days after treatment using a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. RESULTS: Patients of the CAS and the CEA groups did not significantly differ in terms of age, gender, education, degree of carotid artery stenosis, cerebrovascular symptoms and vascular risk factors. Following previously used criteria, a cognitive change in patients was assumed to have occurred when there was a decline of more than one standard deviation in two or more tests assessing various cognitive domains. Six days and 30 days after the treatment both groups showed a comparable number of patients with cognitive changes compared to baseline. There were no significant differences in S100beta protein values. CONCLUSION: These results provide some reassurance that CAS is not associated with greater cognitive deterioration than CEA is.
Authors: P A Ringleb; J Allenberg; H Brückmann; H-H Eckstein; G Fraedrich; M Hartmann; M Hennerici; O Jansen; G Klein; A Kunze; P Marx; K Niederkorn; W Schmiedt; L Solymosi; R Stingele; H Zeumer; W Hacke Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-10-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christian Foerch; Oliver C Singer; Tobias Neumann-Haefelin; Richard du Mesnil de Rochemont; Helmuth Steinmetz; Matthias Sitzer Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2005-07
Authors: Elke A M Hauth; Christian Jansen; Robert Drescher; Michael Schwartz; Michael Forsting; Horst J Jaeger; Klaus D Mathias Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Edward C Jauch; Christopher Lindsell; Joseph Broderick; Susan C Fagan; Barbara C Tilley; Steven R Levine Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-09-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Hans P M van Heesewijk; Jan Albert Vos; Elisabeth S Louwerse; Jos C Van Den Berg; Timotheus T C Overtoom; Sjef M P G Ernst; Henk W Mauser; Frans L Moll; Rob G A Ackerstaff Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mark A Reynolds; Howard J Kirchick; Jeffrey R Dahlen; Joseph M Anderberg; Paul H McPherson; Kevin K Nakamura; Daniel T Laskowitz; Gunars E Valkirs; Kenneth F Buechler Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: S Di Legge; V Di Piero; F Di Stani; R Perna; R Gattuso; M G Reale; F Benedetti Valentini; G L Lenzi Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 3.307
Authors: Tanya N Turan; Alison Smock; George Cotsonis; David Bachman; Sami Al Kasab; Michael J Lynn; Azhar Nizham; Collin P Derdeyn; David Fiorella; Scott Janis; Bethany Lane; Jean Montgomery; Marc I Chimowitz Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2016-11-05 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Katrin Wasser; Helmut Hildebrandt; Sonja Gröschel; Tomislav Stojanovic; Holger Schmidt; Klaus Gröschel; Sara M Pilgram-Pastor; Michael Knauth; Andreas Kastrup Journal: J Neurol Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Jonathan List; Johannes Albers; Julia Kürten; Arne Schwindt; Eike Wilbers; Agnes Flöel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-23 Impact factor: 3.240