BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The use of protection devices (PDs) and stents with different cell designs in carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a subject of controversy, and no data on their benefit are available from independently controlled multi-center studies. METHODS: We analyzed data from the prospective randomized SPACE trial, which included 563 patients randomized toCAS and treated per protocol. A total of 145 patients were treated with a PD and 418 without. Of the patients, 436 were treated with an open cell stent and 127 with a closed cell stent. Use of PDs and choice of device was chosen at the individual discretion of the interventionalist. RESULTS: The outcome event (OE) of the analysis (ipsilateral stroke or ipsilateral stroke death within 30 days) was reached in 26/418 patients (6.2%, 95% CI: 4.1 to 9.0%) in the nonprotection [corrected] group and in 12/145 (8.3%, 95% CI: 4.3 to 14.0%) patients in the protection [corrected] group (P=0.40). The OE rate was significantly lower in patients treated with a closed cell stent (5.6% [95% CI: 3.7 to 8.2%]) than in those treated with an open cell stent.(11.0%, 95% CI: 6.2 to 17.8%; P=0.029). Predilatation showed a tendency to but no significant reduction of OE rate. Overall, 49% of all OEs occurred directly periinterventionally, 10% during the navigation procedure and 41% postinterventionally, including 10% of hyperperfusion syndromes. Time point of the event was not influenced by the use of a PD. CONCLUSIONS: This secondary analysis of data from the SPACE trial does not support the need for a PD in CAS. Stent design seems to have an impact on the OE rate. Our analysis demonstrates that the choice of the interventional material may have an impact on the periprocedural complication rate in CAS and that the development of more specific stent systems for the treatment of carotid stenosis may reduce the complication rate significantly.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The use of protection devices (PDs) and stents with different cell designs in carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a subject of controversy, and no data on their benefit are available from independently controlled multi-center studies. METHODS: We analyzed data from the prospective randomized SPACE trial, which included 563 patients randomized to CAS and treated per protocol. A total of 145 patients were treated with a PD and 418 without. Of the patients, 436 were treated with an open cell stent and 127 with a closed cell stent. Use of PDs and choice of device was chosen at the individual discretion of the interventionalist. RESULTS: The outcome event (OE) of the analysis (ipsilateral stroke or ipsilateral stroke death within 30 days) was reached in 26/418 patients (6.2%, 95% CI: 4.1 to 9.0%) in the nonprotection [corrected] group and in 12/145 (8.3%, 95% CI: 4.3 to 14.0%) patients in the protection [corrected] group (P=0.40). The OE rate was significantly lower in patients treated with a closed cell stent (5.6% [95% CI: 3.7 to 8.2%]) than in those treated with an open cell stent.(11.0%, 95% CI: 6.2 to 17.8%; P=0.029). Predilatation showed a tendency to but no significant reduction of OE rate. Overall, 49% of all OEs occurred directly periinterventionally, 10% during the navigation procedure and 41% postinterventionally, including 10% of hyperperfusion syndromes. Time point of the event was not influenced by the use of a PD. CONCLUSIONS: This secondary analysis of data from the SPACE trial does not support the need for a PD in CAS. Stent design seems to have an impact on the OE rate. Our analysis demonstrates that the choice of the interventional material may have an impact on the periprocedural complication rate in CAS and that the development of more specific stent systems for the treatment of carotid stenosis may reduce the complication rate significantly.
Authors: Jens Fiehler; Søren Jacob Bakke; Andrew Clifton; Emmanuel Houdart; Olav Jansen; Daniel Rüfenacht; Michael Söderman; Christophe Cognard Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2010-05-04 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: K Takayama; T Taoka; H Nakagawa; K Myouchin; T Wada; M Sakamoto; K Furuichi; S Iwasaki; S Kurokawa; K Kichikawa Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: R Oteros; E Jimenez-Gomez; F Bravo-Rodriguez; J J Ochoa; R Guerrero; F Delgado Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Stephan Staubach; Ralph Hein-Rothweiler; Matthias Hochadel; Manuela Segerer; Ralf Zahn; Jens Jung; Gotthard Riess; Hubert Seggewiss; Andre Schneider; Thomas Fürste; Christian Gottkehaskamp; Harald Mudra Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-01-11 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Jens Fiehler; Olav Jansen; Jürgen Berger; Hans-Henning Eckstein; Peter A Ringleb; Robert Stingele Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2008-09-23 Impact factor: 2.804