OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics and outcome of patients with re-stenoses after prior carotid artery stenting (CAS) treated with repeat carotid interventions (Re-CI) with CAS for de novo lesions. BACKGROUND: The treatment of re-stenosis is a major problem in vascular interventions. Patients with re-stenoses after prior CAS treated with Re-CI are not well defined. METHODS: We analyzed data from the prospective ALKK CAS Registry. RESULTS: Out of 3,817 CAS procedures 95 were intended in 93 patients (2.5%) for a restenosis after prior CAS and 3,722 CAS in 3,655 patients (97.5%) for a de novo stenosis. There was no difference in age (p = 0.302) or distribution of gender (p = 0.545) between the two groups. Patients treated for a restenosis after CAS were less likely to be treated for a symptomatic lesion (22.7 vs. 40.1%, p = 0.001). Coronary heart disease (p = 0.017), peripheral arterial disease (p < 0.001) as well as diabetes mellitus (p = 0.004) were more prevalent in the restenosis group. Lesions were less complicated in restenosis patients, with less ulcers (7.4 vs. 19.9%, p = 0.003) and less severe calcifications (7.4 vs. 23.6%, p < 0.001). The intended interventions were more often not performed in the Re-CI group (9.5 vs. 3.3%; p = 0.001). In-hospital, the stroke or death rate was 0% in the Re-CI group as compared to 3.1% in the de novo group (p = 0.115). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with Re-CI for repeat stenoses after prior CAS represent 2.5% of current CAS patients. Although representing a subgroup with more concomitant diseases, Re-CI seems to be associated with lower event rates as compared to CAS for de novo lesions.
OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics and outcome of patients with re-stenoses after prior carotid artery stenting (CAS) treated with repeat carotid interventions (Re-CI) with CAS for de novo lesions. BACKGROUND: The treatment of re-stenosis is a major problem in vascular interventions. Patients with re-stenoses after prior CAS treated with Re-CI are not well defined. METHODS: We analyzed data from the prospective ALKK CAS Registry. RESULTS: Out of 3,817 CAS procedures 95 were intended in 93 patients (2.5%) for a restenosis after prior CAS and 3,722 CAS in 3,655 patients (97.5%) for a de novo stenosis. There was no difference in age (p = 0.302) or distribution of gender (p = 0.545) between the two groups. Patients treated for a restenosis after CAS were less likely to be treated for a symptomatic lesion (22.7 vs. 40.1%, p = 0.001). Coronary heart disease (p = 0.017), peripheral arterial disease (p < 0.001) as well as diabetes mellitus (p = 0.004) were more prevalent in the restenosis group. Lesions were less complicated in restenosispatients, with less ulcers (7.4 vs. 19.9%, p = 0.003) and less severe calcifications (7.4 vs. 23.6%, p < 0.001). The intended interventions were more often not performed in the Re-CI group (9.5 vs. 3.3%; p = 0.001). In-hospital, the stroke or death rate was 0% in the Re-CI group as compared to 3.1% in the de novo group (p = 0.115). CONCLUSIONS:Patients treated with Re-CI for repeat stenoses after prior CAS represent 2.5% of current CASpatients. Although representing a subgroup with more concomitant diseases, Re-CI seems to be associated with lower event rates as compared to CAS for de novo lesions.
Authors: G S Roubin; G New; S S Iyer; J J Vitek; N Al-Mubarak; M W Liu; J Yadav; C Gomez; R E Kuntz Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-01-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Elad I Levy; Ricardo A Hanel; Tsz Lau; Christopher J Koebbe; Naveh Levy; David J Padalino; Kim Marie Malicki; Lee R Guterman; L Nelson Hopkins Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: N Mercado; E Boersma; W Wijns; B J Gersh; C A Morillo; V de Valk; G A van Es; D E Grobbee; P W Serruys Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Christopher L Skelly; Katherine Gallagher; Ronald M Fairman; Jeffrey P Carpenter; Omaida C Velazquez; Shane S Parmer; Edward Y Woo Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Todd Cumbie; Eric B Rosero; R James Valentine; J Gregory Modrall; G Patrick Clagett; Carlos H Timaran Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Hitinder S Gurm; Jay S Yadav; Pierre Fayad; Barry T Katzen; Gregory J Mishkel; Tanvir K Bajwa; Gary Ansel; Neil E Strickman; Hong Wang; Sidney A Cohen; Joseph M Massaro; Donald E Cutlip Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-04-10 Impact factor: 91.245
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: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Alexander Sedaghat; Jan-Malte Sinning; Kathrin Paul; Gregor Kirfel; Georg Nickenig; Nikos Werner Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2013-02-10 Impact factor: 5.460