Literature DB >> 25862360

Comparison of self-expanding stents with distal embolic protection to balloon-expandable stents without a protection device in the treatment of symptomatic vertebral artery origin stenosis: a prospective randomized trial.

Xiaokun Geng1, Mohammed Hussain2, Huishan Du3, Liang Zhao4, Jian Chen5, Wei Su5, Linlin Ma3, Zongen Gao6, Yuchuan Ding7, Xunming Ji8.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the angiographic and clinical outcomes of self-expanding stents (SES) with distal embolic protection devices (EPD) vs balloon-expandable stents (BES) without EPD in the treatment of symptomatic atherosclerotic vertebral artery ostial stenosis (VAOS).
METHODS: Between July 2011 and March 2013, a prospective randomized trial was conducted involving 127 patients (mean age 67.3±10.2 years; 94 men) with symptomatic VAOS randomly assigned to treatment with SES + EPD (Precise RX or RX Acculink stent + Spider FX EPD; n=61) or BES (Palmaz Blue or Resolute RX; n=66) without EPD. In-stent restenosis (ISR) >50% detected by duplex ultrasound was the primary endpoint. Technical success, clinical success, complications within 30 days, and signal intensity abnormalities on diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) after stenting were compared.
RESULTS: The 30-day technical success rate was 95.5% (63/66) for SES+EPD vs 100% (70/70) for BES without EPD (p=0.072). DWI at 24 hours poststenting showed 2 hyperintense lesions in 2 (3.3%) SES + EPD cases and 15 hyperintense lesions in 13 (18.6%) BES patients (p<0.01). At a mean 18-month follow-up, the clinical success rate was 93.9% (62/66) for the SES + EPD group vs 85.7% (60/70) for the BES group (p=0.115). The ISR was seen in 16/70 (22.9%) arteries in the BES group and 2/66 (3.1%) arteries in SES + EPD group (p<0.01). Target vessel revascularization was performed in 7 (10.0%) BES arteries vs none in the SES + EPD group (p<0.01).
CONCLUSION: SES with EPD in the treatment of symptomatic VAOS is technically feasible and safe, with low rates of ISR and significantly reduced thromboembolic events on imaging when compared to BES without EPD.
© The Author(s) 2015.

Entities:  

Keywords:  balloon-expandable stents; embolic protection device; in-stent restenosis; ostial stenosis; self-expanding stents; target vessel revascularization; vertebral artery

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25862360     DOI: 10.1177/1526602815579406

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endovasc Ther        ISSN: 1526-6028            Impact factor:   3.487


  3 in total

1.  Endovascular treatment of the vertebral artery origin stenosis by using the closed-cell, self-expandable Carotid Wallstent.

Authors:  Jun-Kyeung Ko; Chang-Hwa Choi; Lee Hwangbo; Hie-Bum Suh; Tae-Hong Lee; Han-Jin Cho; Sang-Min Sung
Journal:  Interv Neuroradiol       Date:  2020-06-20       Impact factor: 1.610

2.  Long-Term Risk of In-Stent Restenosis and Stent Fracture for Extracranial Vertebral Artery Stenting.

Authors:  Man Kwun Andrew Li; Anderson Chun On Tsang; Frederick Chun Pong Tsang; Wai Shing Ho; Raymand Lee; Gilberto Ka Kit Leung; Wai Man Lui
Journal:  Clin Neuroradiol       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 3.649

3.  Hybrid Recanalization for the Treatment of Carotid/Vertebral In-stent Restenosis or Occlusion: Pilot Surgery Experiences From One Single Center.

Authors:  Chao Wang; Peng Zhao; Tao Sun; Mengtao Han; Yunyan Wang; Wei Wu; Xingang Li; Donghai Wang
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2020-11-24       Impact factor: 4.003

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.