BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to assess and compare the short- and long-term results of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and redo surgery in patients with restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: From January 1988 to December 2014, 44 consecutive patients were treated for carotid restenosis (CR): 23 redo-CEA (52.3%) and 21 CAS (47.7%). Data from these patients were prospectively collected in a dedicated database. Early results and 3-year end points were analyzed and compared between groups with χ2 test, Kaplan-Meier curves, and Breslow test. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics and comorbidity were similar in both groups, except for arterial hypertension and chronic renal insufficiency which were higher in the CAS group. CR was symptomatic in 7 patients in the redo-CEA group (30.4%) and 1 (4.8%) in CAS (P = 0.04). No differences were found in the time period between primary CEA and reintervention, critical carotid stenosis, or contralateral carotid occlusion. Median follow-up was 61.5 months. In the redo-CEA group, 1 patient (4.3%) had a perioperative transient ischemic attack and 3 (13%) experienced cranial nerve injury with complete regression at 30 days. No differences were found between groups in terms of early and long-term mortality, neurologic morbidity, and overall morbidity. The rate of secondary restenosis and freedom from reintervention was similar in both groups during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Both CAS and redo-CEA are suitable options for patients with CR. CAS might be the treatment of choice due to the risk of cranial nerve injuries in redo-CEA. When CAS is contraindicated, redo-CEA remains a safe and effective treatment option.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to assess and compare the short- and long-term results of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and redo surgery in patients with restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: From January 1988 to December 2014, 44 consecutive patients were treated for carotid restenosis (CR): 23 redo-CEA (52.3%) and 21 CAS (47.7%). Data from these patients were prospectively collected in a dedicated database. Early results and 3-year end points were analyzed and compared between groups with χ2 test, Kaplan-Meier curves, and Breslow test. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics and comorbidity were similar in both groups, except for arterial hypertension and chronic renal insufficiency which were higher in the CAS group. CR was symptomatic in 7 patients in the redo-CEA group (30.4%) and 1 (4.8%) in CAS (P = 0.04). No differences were found in the time period between primary CEA and reintervention, critical carotid stenosis, or contralateral carotid occlusion. Median follow-up was 61.5 months. In the redo-CEA group, 1 patient (4.3%) had a perioperative transient ischemic attack and 3 (13%) experienced cranial nerve injury with complete regression at 30 days. No differences were found between groups in terms of early and long-term mortality, neurologic morbidity, and overall morbidity. The rate of secondary restenosis and freedom from reintervention was similar in both groups during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Both CAS and redo-CEA are suitable options for patients with CR. CAS might be the treatment of choice due to the risk of cranial nerve injuries in redo-CEA. When CAS is contraindicated, redo-CEA remains a safe and effective treatment option.
Authors: Runqi Wangqin; Paul R Krafft; Keaton Piper; Jay Kumar; Kaya Xu; Maxim Mokin; Zeguang Ren Journal: Transl Stroke Res Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 6.829
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
Authors: Francesco Stilo; Nunzio Montelione; Rosalinda Calandrelli; Marisa Distefano; Francesco Spinelli; Vincenzo Di Lazzaro; Fabio Pilato Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2020-10