These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Carotid endarterectomy versus carotid stenting: a prospective randomized trial].
    Author: Liu CW, Liu B, Ye W, Wu WW, Li YJ, Zheng YH, Wu JD, Zeng R, Guan H.
    Journal: Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2009 Feb 15; 47(4):267-70. PubMed ID: 19570388.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the early and midterm outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) compared with carotid stenting (CAS) in patients with carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: A prospective randomized single-center clinical trail to compare with endarterectomy and stenting in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis of at least 50% and asymptomatic stenosis of at least 70%. From May 2004 to December 2006, there were 40 patients who agreed with the treatment were randomly assigned to undergo either CEA or CAS. The primary end point was any stroke or death within 30 d after treatment and the secondary end point was any stroke, myocardial infarction and any complications of the treatment, or death or ipsilateral stroke and carotid restenosis between 1 month and 18 months, and the cost-effectiveness of both groups were analyzed retrospectively as well. RESULTS: There were no significant differences of the characteristics in the two groups. Twenty cases in CEA group underwent 23 endarterectomies (3 cases had bilateral CEA, respectively), in which 9 carotid shunt (39.1%) and 12 patching (52.2%) were used. Twenty cases in CAS group underwent 23 stents (3 cases had bilateral CSA, respectively), in which 21 emboli-protection devices (91.3%) were used. There was no significant difference in 30 d neurological complications (4.3% vs. 8.7%), acute myocardial infarction (4.3% vs. 0), and wound hematoma (8.7% vs. 0) between CEA and CAS, respectively. There was no ipsilateral transient ischemic attack or carotid restenosis at 18 months in each group. The average cost of hospitalization was (16 450.95 +/- 6188.76) vs. (70 130.15 +/- 11 999.02) RMB in CEA and CAS, respectively, with significant difference (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The early and midterm outcomes are no significant difference between CEA and CAS, but in China, the cost of hospitalization in CAS is much higher than that of CEA.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]