J Kammler1, H Blessberger2, T Lambert2, J Kellermair2, M Grund2, A Nahler2, M Lichtenauer3, S Schwarz2, C Reiter2, C Steinwender2,3, A Kypta2. 1. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Cardiology, Med Campus III, Kepler University Hospital Linz, Krankenhausstrasse 9, 4021, Linz, Austria. juergen.kammler@kepleruniklinikum.at. 2. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Cardiology, Med Campus III, Kepler University Hospital Linz, Krankenhausstrasse 9, 4021, Linz, Austria. 3. Department of Internal Medicine II, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whereas in-stent restenosis (ISR) is widely discussed after coronary stenting procedures, this phenomenon is a considerable problem after interventional treatment of carotid artery stenosis as well. We sought to quantify ISR rate and to identify important respective risk factors in our cohort. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data of our carotid artery stenting database comprising 1165 angiographically successful interventional procedures during the last 19 years. Significant ISR was assessed by Doppler ultrasound and defined as a flow velocity exceeding 300 cm/s representing a lumen narrowing >70%. Examinations were performed the day after intervention, at follow-up visits 1, 6 and 12 months after index hospitalization and once a year afterwards. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients (3.4%) developed a significant ISR > 70% during the follow-up period (median 19.6 months, IQR 5.1-49.6 months). In 13 of them, restenosis was caused by a mechanical collapse (stent crush) of the implanted stent. All patients with significant ISR were free of neurological events during follow-up and 31 patients underwent a stent-in-stent implantation. We found a shorter stent length, a narrower stent diameter, performance of post-dilatation as well as stent type to significantly influence development of ISR. CONCLUSION: ISR > 70% after carotid artery stenting is a rare finding also during long-term follow-up. Especially in patients treated with balloon-expandable stents, post-dilatation reduced ISR significantly. As ISR was rare and clinically benign, this technique seems to remain a good therapy option in patients with significant carotid artery stenosis.
BACKGROUND: Whereas in-stent restenosis (ISR) is widely discussed after coronary stenting procedures, this phenomenon is a considerable problem after interventional treatment of carotid artery stenosis as well. We sought to quantify ISR rate and to identify important respective risk factors in our cohort. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data of our carotid artery stenting database comprising 1165 angiographically successful interventional procedures during the last 19 years. Significant ISR was assessed by Doppler ultrasound and defined as a flow velocity exceeding 300 cm/s representing a lumen narrowing >70%. Examinations were performed the day after intervention, at follow-up visits 1, 6 and 12 months after index hospitalization and once a year afterwards. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients (3.4%) developed a significant ISR > 70% during the follow-up period (median 19.6 months, IQR 5.1-49.6 months). In 13 of them, restenosis was caused by a mechanical collapse (stent crush) of the implanted stent. All patients with significant ISR were free of neurological events during follow-up and 31 patients underwent a stent-in-stent implantation. We found a shorter stent length, a narrower stent diameter, performance of post-dilatation as well as stent type to significantly influence development of ISR. CONCLUSION: ISR > 70% after carotid artery stenting is a rare finding also during long-term follow-up. Especially in patients treated with balloon-expandable stents, post-dilatation reduced ISR significantly. As ISR was rare and clinically benign, this technique seems to remain a good therapy option in patients with significant carotid artery stenosis.
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: 2014-01-11 Impact factor: 5.460
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: 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: Ján Sýkora; Kamil Zeleňák; Martin Vorčák; Martin Števík; Martina Sýkorová; Jozef Sivák; Marek Rovňák; Jana Zapletalová; Juraj Mužík; Igor Šinák; Egon Kurča; Lukas Meyer; Jens Fiehler Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 2.797
Authors: Roland Richard Macharzina; Carolin Müller; Matthias Vogt; Steven R Messé; Werner Vach; Thomas Winker; Michael Weinbeck; Matthias Siepe; Martin Czerny; Franz-Josef Neumann; Thomas Zeller Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 5.460