BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a valid treatment for patients with carotid artery stenosis. The long-term outcome and prognostic factors in Asian population after CAS are not clear. This study aimed to identify the prognostic factors among Asian patients who have undergone CAS. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 246 patients with CAS. Annual carotid duplex ultrasound was used to identify restenosis. Peri-procedural complications, restenosis, neurologic outcomes, and mortality were recorded. Cox regression analyses were used to identify prognostic factors. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 49.2 months. Procedural success was achieved in 237 patients (98.3%), and protection devices were used in 208 patients (84.5%). Within 30 days of CAS, 13 (4.3% per procedure) peri-procedural complications occurred. During the follow-up period, 24 (9.7%) patients developed restenosis, and 37 (15.0%) developed ischemic strokes. In a multiple logistic regression analysis, head and neck radiotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) = 9.9, 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.38-29.1, p < .001], stent diameter (HR = 0.72, 95% CI, 0.58-0.89, p = .003), and predilatation (HR = 3.08 95% CI, 1.21-7.81, p = .018) were independent predictors for restenosis. In Cox regression analysis, hypercholesterolemia (HR = 0.25, 95% CI, 0.07-0.94, p = .04), head and neck radiotherapy (HR = 6.2, 95% CI, 1.8-21.3, p = .004), and restenosis (HR = 3.6, 95% CI, 1.1-11.18, p = .04) were predictors for recurrent ipsilateral ischemic stroke. CONCLUSIONS: CAS provides reliable long-term results in Asian patients with carotid stenosis. Restenosis is associated with an increased rate of recurrent stroke and should be monitored carefully following CAS. KEY WORDS: Carotid artery disease • Prognosis • Cerebrovascular disease.
BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a valid treatment for patients with carotid artery stenosis. The long-term outcome and prognostic factors in Asian population after CAS are not clear. This study aimed to identify the prognostic factors among Asian patients who have undergone CAS. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 246 patients with CAS. Annual carotid duplex ultrasound was used to identify restenosis. Peri-procedural complications, restenosis, neurologic outcomes, and mortality were recorded. Cox regression analyses were used to identify prognostic factors. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 49.2 months. Procedural success was achieved in 237 patients (98.3%), and protection devices were used in 208 patients (84.5%). Within 30 days of CAS, 13 (4.3% per procedure) peri-procedural complications occurred. During the follow-up period, 24 (9.7%) patients developed restenosis, and 37 (15.0%) developed ischemic strokes. In a multiple logistic regression analysis, head and neck radiotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) = 9.9, 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.38-29.1, p < .001], stent diameter (HR = 0.72, 95% CI, 0.58-0.89, p = .003), and predilatation (HR = 3.08 95% CI, 1.21-7.81, p = .018) were independent predictors for restenosis. In Cox regression analysis, hypercholesterolemia (HR = 0.25, 95% CI, 0.07-0.94, p = .04), head and neck radiotherapy (HR = 6.2, 95% CI, 1.8-21.3, p = .004), and restenosis (HR = 3.6, 95% CI, 1.1-11.18, p = .04) were predictors for recurrent ipsilateral ischemic stroke. CONCLUSIONS:CAS provides reliable long-term results in Asian patients with carotid stenosis. Restenosis is associated with an increased rate of recurrent stroke and should be monitored carefully following CAS. KEY WORDS: Carotid artery disease • Prognosis • Cerebrovascular disease.
Authors: Clinton D Protack; Andrew M Bakken; Wael E Saad; Karl A Illig; David L Waldman; Mark G Davies Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Andreas Kastrup; Klaus Gröschel; Hilmar Krapf; Bernhard R Brehm; Johannes Dichgans; Jörg B Schulz Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-02-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Marc S Randall; Fiona M McKevitt; Sanjeev Kumar; Trevor J Cleveland; Keith Endean; Graham S Venables; Peter A Gaines Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Tiziano Tallarita; Gustavo S Oderich; Giuseppe Lanzino; Harry Cloft; David Kallmes; Thomas C Bower; Audra A Duncan; Peter Gloviczki Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2011-01-08 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Mark K Eskandari; Asad A Usman; Manuel Garcia-Toca; Jon S Matsumura; Melina R Kibbe; Mark D Morasch; Heron E Rodriguez; William H Pearce Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2010-03-20 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Robert Stingele; Jürgen Berger; Karsten Alfke; Hans-Henning Eckstein; Gustav Fraedrich; Jens Allenberg; Marius Hartmann; Peter A Ringleb; Jens Fiehler; H Bruckmann; M Hennerici; O Jansen; G Klein; A Kunze; P Marx; K Niederkorn; W Schmiedt; L Solymosi; H Zeumer; W Hacke Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Brajesh K Lal; Kirk W Beach; Gary S Roubin; Helmi L Lutsep; Wesley S Moore; Mahmoud B Malas; David Chiu; Nicole R Gonzales; J Lee Burke; Michael Rinaldi; James R Elmore; Fred A Weaver; Craig R Narins; Malcolm Foster; Kim J Hodgson; Alexander D Shepard; James F Meschia; Robert O Bergelin; Jenifer H Voeks; George Howard; Thomas G Brott Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Verónica Fernández-Alvarez; Fernando López; Carlos Suárez; Primoz Strojan; Avraham Eisbruch; Carl E Silver; William M Mendenhall; Johannes A Langendijk; Alessandra Rinaldo; Anne W M Lee; Jonathan J Beitler; Robert Smee; Javier Alvarez; Alfio Ferlito Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-04-20 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Ali F AbuRahma; Zachary T AbuRahma; Grant Scott; Elliot Adams; Abe Mata; Matthew Beasley; L Scott Dean; Elaine Davis Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Michiel H F Poorthuis; Reinier A R Herings; Kirsten Dansey; Johanna A A Damen; Jacoba P Greving; Marc L Schermerhorn; Gert J de Borst Journal: Stroke Date: 2021-10-12 Impact factor: 7.914