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: Contralateral occlusion is not a clinically important reason for choosing carotid artery stenting for patients with significant carotid artery stenosis.
    Author: Brewster LP, Beaulieu R, Kasirajan K, Corriere MA, Ricotta JJ, Patel S, Dodson TF.
    Journal: J Vasc Surg; 2012 Nov; 56(5):1291-4; discussion 1294-5. PubMed ID: 22840742.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Contralateral carotid artery occlusion by itself carries an increased risk of stroke. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the presence of contralateral carotid artery occlusion has high reported rates of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Our objective was to determine if there is a clinical benefit to patients who receive carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared to CEA in the presence of contralateral carotid artery occlusion. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective medical chart review over a 4.5-year institutional experience of persons with contralateral carotid artery occlusion and ipsilateral carotid artery stenosis who underwent CAS or CEA. The main outcome measures were 30-day cardiac, stroke, and mortality rate, and midterm mortality. RESULTS: Of a total of 713 patients treated for carotid artery stenosis during this time period, 57 had contralateral occlusion (~8%). Thirty-nine of these patients were treated with CAS, and 18 with CEA. The most common indications for CAS were prior neck surgery (18), contralateral internal carotid occlusion (nine), and prior neck radiation (seven). The average age was 70 ± 8.5 for CEA and 66.7 ± 9.3 for CAS (P = .20). Both groups were predominantly men (CEA 12 of 18; CAS 28 of 39; P = .76), with similar prevalence of symptomatic lesions (CEA 8 of 18, CAS 20 of 39; P = .77). Two patients died within 30 days in the CAS group (5%). No deaths occurred within 30 days in the CEA group (P = .50); the mortality rate for CAS and CEA combined was 3.5%. No perioperative strokes or myocardial infarction occurred in either group. Two transient ischemic attacks occurred after CAS. At mean follow-up of 29.4 ± 16 months (CEA) and 28 ± 14.4 months (CAS; range, 1.5-48.5 months), seven deaths occurred in the CAS group and one in the CEA group (17.9% vs 5.5%; P = .40). There were two reinterventions in the CAS group for in-stent restenosis and there were no reoperations in the CEA group. CONCLUSIONS: Although CEA and CAS can both be performed with good perioperative results and acceptable midterm mortality, the observed outcomes do not support use of contralateral carotid artery occlusion as a selection criterion for CAS over CEA in the absence of other indications.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]