Low Incidence of Symptomatic Strokes after Carotid Stenting without Embolization Protection Devices for Extracranial Carotid Stenosis: A Single-institution Retrospective Review

2009 ◽  
Vol 2009 ◽  
pp. 199-200
Author(s):  
A.S. Arthur
Neurosurgery ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 867-873 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aditya S. Pandey ◽  
Christopher J. Koebbe ◽  
Kenneth Liebman ◽  
Robert H. Rosenwasser ◽  
Erol Veznedaroglu

Abstract OBJECTIVE Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) remains the primary modality of treating individuals with carotid stenosis and significant comorbidities or anatomically difficult lesions. The use of embolization protection devices (EPD) has been mandated by the cerebrovascular community even though the ability of these devices to prevent symptomatic strokes is not supported by the current literature. Our goal was to assess the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent CAS without EPDs at our hospital from 1996 to 2006. METHODS We performed a retrospective chart analysis of all patients who underwent CAS without EPDs at the Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience in Philadelphia, PA. The clinical and angiographic outcomes of these patients were studied retrospectively using chart reviews and operative, angiographic, and radiological reports. The mean clinical and radiological follow-up period was 18.6 months. RESULTS One hundred five patients (97.2%) had clinical follow-up at 1 month. During this period, the following complications were observed: cerebrovascular accidents in 2 patients (1.9%), myocardial infarctions in 2 patients (1.9%), femoral hematoma in 1 patient (0.9%), retroperitoneal hematomas in 3 patients (2.8%), and cervical carotid dissections in 4 patients (3.7%); 2 patients (1.9%) died. Seventy-six patients (80.9%) had a mean clinical follow-up period of 18.6 months. During this period, 2 patients (2.6%) had cerebrovascular accidents, 1 of which was fatal. The long-term morbidity and mortality rate was 2.6%. In the same follow-up period, the restenosis (>50% stenosis from baseline) rate was 9.2% (7 patients). Three (3.9%) of these patients went on to require repeat CAS. CONCLUSION Our experience reveals that CAS can be performed safely with risks similar to those reported in series in which EPDs were used. Any procedure or device that adds risk and cost to the patient should be evaluated with a randomized, controlled trial to evaluate its efficacy, especially in situations in which published data provide conflicting results. The use of EPDs should be no exception to this paradigm.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren A. Duckworth ◽  
Claudiu V. Cotta ◽  
J Jordi Rowe ◽  
Erinn Downs‐Kelly ◽  
Miglena K. Komforti

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. S511-S512
Author(s):  
K. Thomas ◽  
C. Smith ◽  
A. Marsala ◽  
J.P. Boudreaux ◽  
R. Thiagarajan ◽  
...  

Neurosurgery ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 74 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S92-S101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge L. Eller ◽  
Travis M. Dumont ◽  
Grant C. Sorkin ◽  
Maxim Mokin ◽  
Elad I. Levy ◽  
...  

Abstract Carotid artery stenting has become a viable alternative to carotid endarterectomy in the management of carotid stenosis. Over the past 20 years, many trials have attempted to compare both treatment modalities and establish the indications for each one, depending on clinical and anatomic features presented by patients. Concurrently, carotid stenting techniques and devices have evolved and made endovascular management of carotid stenosis safe and effective. Among the most important innovations are devices for distal and proximal embolic protection and new stent designs. This paper reviews these advances in the endovascular management of carotid artery stenosis within the context of the historical background.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document