BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been advocated as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in high-risk surgical patients, including stenosis after CEA. This study compared early and midterm clinical outcomes for primary CAS vs CAS for post-CEA stenosis. METHODS: This study analyzed 180 high-risk surgical patients: 68 had primary CAS (group A), and 112 had CAS for post-CEA stenosis (group B). Patients were followed-up prospectively and had duplex ultrasound imaging at 1 month and every 6 months thereafter. All patients had cerebral protection devices. Kaplan-Meier life-table analysis was used to estimate rates of freedom from stroke, stroke-free survival, > or =50% in-stent stenosis, > or =80% in-stent stenosis, and target vessel reintervention (TVR). RESULTS: Patients had comparable demographic and clinical characteristics. Carotid stent locations were similar. Indications for CAS were transient ischemic attacks (TIA) or stroke in 50% for group A and 45% for group B. The mean follow-up was comparable, at 21 (range, 1-73) vs 25 (range, 1-78) months, respectively. The technical success rate was 100%. The perioperative stroke rates and combined stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI) rates were 7.4% for group A vs 0.9% for group B (P = .0294). No perioperative MIs occurred in either group. One death was secondary to stroke. The combined early and late stroke rates were 10.8% for group A and 1.8% for group B (P = .0275). The stroke-free rates at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years for groups A and B were 89%, 89%, 89%, and 89%; and 98%, 98%, 98%, and 98%, respectively (P = .0105). The rates of freedom from > or =50% carotid in-stent stenosis were 94%, 83%, 83%, and 66% for group A vs 96%, 91%, 83%, and 72% for group B (P = .4705). Two patients (3%) in group A and seven patients (6.3%) in group B had > or =80% in-stent stenosis (all were asymptomatic except one). The freedom from > or =80% in-stent stenosis at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years for groups A and B were 100%, 98%, 98%, and 78% vs 99%, 96%, 92%, and 87%, respectively (P = .7005). Freedom from TVR rates at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years for groups A and B were 100%, 100%, 100%, and 100% vs 99%, 97%, 97%, and 92%, respectively (P = .261). CONCLUSIONS: CAS for post-CEA stenosis carried a lower risk of early postprocedural neurologic events than primary CAS, with a trend toward a higher restenosis rate during follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been advocated as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in high-risk surgical patients, including stenosis after CEA. This study compared early and midterm clinical outcomes for primary CAS vs CAS for post-CEA stenosis. METHODS: This study analyzed 180 high-risk surgical patients: 68 had primary CAS (group A), and 112 had CAS for post-CEA stenosis (group B). Patients were followed-up prospectively and had duplex ultrasound imaging at 1 month and every 6 months thereafter. All patients had cerebral protection devices. Kaplan-Meier life-table analysis was used to estimate rates of freedom from stroke, stroke-free survival, > or =50% in-stent stenosis, > or =80% in-stent stenosis, and target vessel reintervention (TVR). RESULTS:Patients had comparable demographic and clinical characteristics. Carotid stent locations were similar. Indications for CAS were transient ischemic attacks (TIA) or stroke in 50% for group A and 45% for group B. The mean follow-up was comparable, at 21 (range, 1-73) vs 25 (range, 1-78) months, respectively. The technical success rate was 100%. The perioperative stroke rates and combined stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI) rates were 7.4% for group A vs 0.9% for group B (P = .0294). No perioperative MIs occurred in either group. One death was secondary to stroke. The combined early and late stroke rates were 10.8% for group A and 1.8% for group B (P = .0275). The stroke-free rates at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years for groups A and B were 89%, 89%, 89%, and 89%; and 98%, 98%, 98%, and 98%, respectively (P = .0105). The rates of freedom from > or =50% carotid in-stent stenosis were 94%, 83%, 83%, and 66% for group A vs 96%, 91%, 83%, and 72% for group B (P = .4705). Two patients (3%) in group A and seven patients (6.3%) in group B had > or =80% in-stent stenosis (all were asymptomatic except one). The freedom from > or =80% in-stent stenosis at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years for groups A and B were 100%, 98%, 98%, and 78% vs 99%, 96%, 92%, and 87%, respectively (P = .7005). Freedom from TVR rates at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years for groups A and B were 100%, 100%, 100%, and 100% vs 99%, 97%, 97%, and 92%, respectively (P = .261). CONCLUSIONS: CAS for post-CEA stenosis carried a lower risk of early postprocedural neurologic events than primary CAS, with a trend toward a higher restenosis rate during follow-up.
Authors: Albeir Y Mousa; Ali F AbuRahma; Joseph Bozzay; Mike Broce; Maher Kali; Michael Yacoub; Patrick Stone; Mark C Bates Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 3.487
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: Margriet Fokkema; Rodney P Bensley; Ruby C Lo; Allan D Hamden; Mark C Wyers; Frans L Moll; Gert Jan de Borst; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Margriet Fokkema; Gert Jan de Borst; Brian W Nolan; Ruby C Lo; Robert A Cambria; Richard J Powell; Frans L Moll; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2013-08-22 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Adam Mazurek; Krzysztof Malinowski; Kenneth Rosenfield; Laura Capoccia; Francesco Speziale; Gianmarco de Donato; Carlo Setacci; Christian Wissgott; Pasqualino Sirignano; Lukasz Tekieli; Andrey Karpenko; Waclaw Kuczmik; Eugenio Stabile; David Christopher Metzger; Max Amor; Adnan H Siddiqui; Antonio Micari; Piotr Pieniążek; Alberto Cremonesi; Joachim Schofer; Andrej Schmidt; Piotr Musialek Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Dat Tin Nguyen; Ákos Bérczi; Balázs Bence Nyárády; Ádám Szőnyi; Márton Philippovich; Edit Dósa Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-09-24 Impact factor: 4.964