Dong Yan1, Xiao Tang2, Zhenyu Shi2, Lixin Wang2, Changpo Lin2, Daqiao Guo3, Weiguo Fu2. 1. Department of Vascular Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, and Vascular Center of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 2. Institute of Vascular Surgery, Department of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 3. Institute of Vascular Surgery, Department of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: guo.daqiao@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim was to compare perioperative and follow-up results of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with carotid near-occlusion (NO). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted from January 2012 to June 2017 on consecutive patients with NO in our center. Perioperative complications, recurrence rate of ischemic stroke, restenosis rate, and mortality in follow-up were compared between the CAS group and CEA group. RESULTS: 92 patients (CAS group, 54 and CEA group, 38) were identified. Perioperative (30-day) results were as follows: the rate of new lesions on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was higher in the CAS group (n = 31, 57.4%) than in the CEA group (n = 13, 34.2%) (P = 0.03); no differences were found in ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), cardiac infarction, and death rate between the two groups. Results from follow-up with a mean period of 28.3 (range from 3 to 60) months were as follows: the restenosis rate was lower in the CAS group (n = 1, 1.8%) than the CEA group (n = 4, 10.5%) (P = 0.04); no differences were found in ischemic stroke, TIA, and the death rate between the two groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the five-year survival rate was 85.8% of the CAS group and 82.7% of the CEA group (P = 0.61); the five-year rate of freedom from target-lesion restenosis was 93.3% of the CAS group and 80.4% of the CEA group (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Both CAS and CEA can be used for carotid NO with the same rate of TIA/stroke and long-term survival. The rate of new lesions on DWI after CAS was higher than that in CEA in the perioperative period. CAS had a lower restenosis rate than CEA in follow-up, which might be more beneficial for remodeling of the distal internal carotid artery.
BACKGROUND: The aim was to compare perioperative and follow-up results of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with carotid near-occlusion (NO). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted from January 2012 to June 2017 on consecutive patients with NO in our center. Perioperative complications, recurrence rate of ischemic stroke, restenosis rate, and mortality in follow-up were compared between the CAS group and CEA group. RESULTS: 92 patients (CAS group, 54 and CEA group, 38) were identified. Perioperative (30-day) results were as follows: the rate of new lesions on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was higher in the CAS group (n = 31, 57.4%) than in the CEA group (n = 13, 34.2%) (P = 0.03); no differences were found in ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), cardiac infarction, and death rate between the two groups. Results from follow-up with a mean period of 28.3 (range from 3 to 60) months were as follows: the restenosis rate was lower in the CAS group (n = 1, 1.8%) than the CEA group (n = 4, 10.5%) (P = 0.04); no differences were found in ischemic stroke, TIA, and the death rate between the two groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the five-year survival rate was 85.8% of the CAS group and 82.7% of the CEA group (P = 0.61); the five-year rate of freedom from target-lesion restenosis was 93.3% of the CAS group and 80.4% of the CEA group (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Both CAS and CEA can be used for carotid NO with the same rate of TIA/stroke and long-term survival. The rate of new lesions on DWI after CAS was higher than that in CEA in the perioperative period. CAS had a lower restenosis rate than CEA in follow-up, which might be more beneficial for remodeling of the distal internal carotid artery.
Authors: A Garcia-Pastor; A Gil-Núñez; J M Ramirez-Moreno; N González-Nafría; J Tejada; F Moniche; J C Portilla-Cuenca; P Martínez-Sánchez; B Fuentes; M A Gamero-García; M A de Leciñana; J Masjuan; D C Verge; Y Aladro; V Parkhutik; A Lago; A M de Arce-Borda; M Usero-Ruiz; R Delgado-Mederos; A Pampliega; Á Ximenez-Carrillo; M Bártulos-Iglesias; E Castro-Reyes Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Dat Tin Nguyen; Boldizsár Vokó; Balázs Bence Nyárádi; Tamás Munkácsi; Ákos Bérczi; Zoltán Vokó; Edit Dósa Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Adam Mazurek; Krzysztof Malinowski; Kenneth Rosenfield; Laura Capoccia; Francesco Speziale; Gianmarco de Donato; Carlo Setacci; Christian Wissgott; Pasqualino Sirignano; Lukasz Tekieli; Andrey Karpenko; Waclaw Kuczmik; Eugenio Stabile; David Christopher Metzger; Max Amor; Adnan H Siddiqui; Antonio Micari; Piotr Pieniążek; Alberto Cremonesi; Joachim Schofer; Andrej Schmidt; Piotr Musialek Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-17 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