scholarly journals Review: Yadav JS, Wholey MH, Kuntz RE, et al: Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 351:1493–1501, 2004

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Oren N. Gottfried ◽  
William T. Couldwell

Background Carotid endarterectomy is more effective than medical management in the prevention of stroke in patients with severe symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid-artery stenosis. Stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device is a less invasive revascularization strategy than endarterectomy in carotid-artery disease. Methods We conducted a randomized trial comparing carotid-artery stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device to endarterectomy in 334 patients with coexisting conditions that potentially increased the risk posed by endarterectomy and who had either a symptomatic carotid-artery stenosis of at least 50 percent of the luminal diameter or an asymptomatic stenosis of at least 80 percent. The primary end point of the study was the cumulative incidence of a major cardiovascular event at 1 year—a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30 days after the intervention or death or ipsilateral stroke between 31 days and 1 year. The study was designed to test the hypothesis that the less invasive strategy, stenting, was not inferior to endarterectomy. Results The primary end point occurred in 20 patients randomly assigned to undergo carotid-artery stenting with an emboli-protection device (cumulative incidence, 12.2 percent) and in 32 patients randomly assigned to undergo endarterectomy (cumulative incidence, 20.1 percent; absolute difference, −7.9 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval, −16.4 to 0.7 percentage points; P=0.004 for noninferiority, and P=0.053 for superiority). At one year, carotid revascularization was repeated in fewer patients who had received stents than in those who had undergone endarterectomy (cumulative incidence, 0.6 percent vs. 4.3 percent; P=0.04). Conclusions Among patients with severe carotid-artery stenosis and coexisting conditions, carotid stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device is not inferior to carotid endarterectomy.

Author(s):  
James Hu ◽  
◽  
Andy Sohn ◽  
Justin George ◽  
Rajesh Malik ◽  
...  

Carotid artery atherosclerotic disease impacts over 2 million Americans annually. Since the advent of the carotid endarterectomy by Debakey in 1953, the surgical management of carotid artery stenosis has prevented cerebrovascular accidents. The technology utilized to manage carotid artery stenosis continued to evolve with the utilization of carotid artery stenting in 1989 and more recently transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). This review discusses the modern management of carotid artery stenosis with an emphasis on transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and reversal of flow for reversal of flow for embolic protection.


Author(s):  
Daniel Yavin ◽  
Derek J. Roberts ◽  
Michael Tso ◽  
Garnette R. Sutherland ◽  
Misha Eliasziw ◽  
...  

Background:A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to update the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis.Methods:A comprehensive search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, bibliographies of included articles and past systematic reviews, and abstract lists of recent scientific conferences. For each reported outcome, a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The I2 statistic was used as a measure of heterogeneity.Results:Twelve RCTs enrolling 6,973 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Carotid artery stenting was associated with a significantly greater odds of periprocedural stroke (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.47) and a significantly lower odds of periprocedural myocardial infarction (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.78) and cranial neuropathy (OR 0.08, 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.16). The odds of periprocedural death (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.18), target vessel restenosis (OR 1.95, 95% CI 0.63 to 6.06), and access-related hematoma were similar following either intervention (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.21).Conclusions:In comparison with CEA, CAS is associated with a greater odds of stroke and a lower odds of myocardial infarction. While the results our meta-analysis support the continued use of CEA as the standard of care in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis, CAS is a viable alternative in patients at elevated risk of cardiac complications.


2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (18) ◽  
pp. C236
Author(s):  
Hakan Muhammed Taş ◽  
Ziya Simsek ◽  
Abdurrahim Colak ◽  
Pınar Demir ◽  
Recep Demir ◽  
...  

Vascular ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kosmas I. Paraskevas ◽  
Dimitri P. Mikhailidis ◽  
Frank J. Veith

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.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel M Kaye ◽  
Juan C Mejia-Munne ◽  
Aaron W Grossman ◽  
Peyman Shirani ◽  
Matthew S Smith ◽  
...  

Abstract Carotid artery stenosis is implicated in up to 40% of all ischemic strokes. Accordingly, symptomatic, high-grade carotid artery stenosis portends an especially high risk of future stroke. Intervention via open or endovascular approaches drastically reduces this risk. Under the appropriate conditions, carotid artery stenting serves as a safe and effective alternative to carotid endarterectomy. We present the case of a 57-yr-old male with symptomatic, high-grade stenosis of his right internal carotid artery, for whom a history of radiation to the head and neck represented a relative contraindication to carotid endarterectomy, and thus endovascular treatment with angioplasty and stenting was performed. Informed consent was obtained prior to the procedure. Intraprocedurally, stent delivery past the area of stenosis proved somewhat challenging. However, by employing several nuanced maneuvers, we utilized our guiding catheter in a nonconventional manner in order to successfully perform the procedure. As the field of neuroendovascular surgery evolves, each case provides us unique lessons, which in turn expands our interventional capabilities and adds to the armamentarium of neuroendovascular techniques. We present this surgical video both as a means to provide a general overview of carotid artery stenting, and to share a lesson learned through the implementation of an interesting technical nuance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document