Flow-Reversal Device for Cerebral Protection During Carotid Artery Stenting-Acute and Long-Term Results

Background & Objective Considering an increasing incidence of carotid artery disease in Asian subjects, the data showing long-term outcome of carotid artery stenting(CAS) from Asian population is mandatory. However, long-term outcome of CAS in Asian population have rarely been reported. The purpose of this study is to evaluate long-term results of CAS from the 10-year experience of a single center. Methods Patients undergoing CAS between May 2002 and May 2012 in our hospital were retrospectively reviewed. We abstracted demographic, clinical, and medical factors. In addition, plaque characteristics and angiographic factors were also evaluated. Neck CT angiography was followed-up every 6 months after CAS. We investigated the cumulative long-term incidence of carotid restenosis and risk factors for the development of restenosis. Results A total of 262 arteries (248 patients, mean age of 72.1±7.6 years, 81.7% male) were analysed. The degree of mean carotid stenosis was 70.9±17.5%. Symptomatic lesions were 178 (67.9%), and 84 (32.1%) arteries were asymptomatic. Predilatation (97.3%) and post-dilatation (42.4%) was performed during procedures. Embolic protection devices were used in 233 (88.9%) cases. During procedures, In-situ thrombosis with embolic infarction or TIA occurred in 6 (2.3%) and 10 (3.8%) cases, respectively. During a median follow-up time of 27.5 months, restenosis (> 50% stenosis) was detected in 18 (6.9%) of 262 arteries (asymptomatic, 16; symptomatic, 2). Restenotic lesions were treated in 6 (2.3%) cases with angioplasty including 2 symptomatic patients. The percentage of residual stenosis after stenting was significantly related to a risk of restenosis (p<0.02). Discussion Restenosis rate in this study was comparable to those of other single or multi-center trials in Western population. Our long-term results may validate CAS as a durable procedure for stroke prevention in patients with carotid artery stenosis in Korea.

Download Full-text

Carotid Artery Stenting May Be Losing the Battle against Carotid Endarterectomy for the Management of Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis, But the Jury Is Still Out

Vascular ◽

10.2310/6670.2009.00039 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 17 (4) ◽

pp. 183-189 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Kosmas I. Paraskevas ◽

Dimitri P. Mikhailidis ◽

Frank J. Veith

Keyword(s):

Carotid Artery ◽

Carotid Endarterectomy ◽

Carotid Stenosis ◽

Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽

Carotid Artery Stenting ◽

Artery Stenosis ◽

Long Term Results ◽

Symptomatic Carotid ◽

Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a potential alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the management of carotid artery stenosis. The purpose of this article is to provide an evaluation and critical overview of the trials comparing the early and later results of CAS with CEA for symptomatic carotid stenosis. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, PubMed/Medline, and EMBASE databases were searched up to February 1, 2009, to identify trials comparing the long-term outcomes of CAS with CEA. The MeSH terms used were “carotid artery stenting,” “carotid endarterectomy,” “symptomatic carotid artery stenosis,” “treatment,” “clinical trial,” “randomized,” and “long-term results,” in various combinations. One single-center and three multicenter randomized studies reporting their long-term results from the comparison of CAS with CEA for symptomatic carotid stenosis were identified. All four studies independently reached the conclusion that CAS may not provide results equivalent to those of CEA for the management of symptomatic carotid stenosis. A higher incidence of recurrent stenosis and peri- and postprocedural events accounted for the inferior results reported for CAS compared with CEA. Current data from randomized studies indicate that CAS provides inferior long-term results compared with CEA for the management of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. However, it can be argued that all of these trials were performed when both CAS equipment and CAS operators had not evolved to their current status. Given that current equipment and mature experience are required for CAS before comparing it with the current “gold standard” procedure (CEA), the results of soon-to-be reported trials (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial [CREST], International Carotid Stenting Study [ICSS], or others) may alter the current impression that CAS is inferior to CEA for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis.

Download Full-text