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: Propensity-Matched Comparison for Carotid Artery Stenting in Primary Stenosis Versus after Carotid Endarterectomy Restenosis.
    Author: Kahlberg A, Ardita V, Spertino A, Mascia D, Bertoglio L, Baccellieri D, Lembo R, Melissano G, Chiesa R.
    Journal: Ann Vasc Surg; 2021 Jan; 70():332-340. PubMed ID: 32634561.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been proposed as the treatment of choice in case of restenosis (RES) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The aim of this study was to analyze periprocedural results of CAS for the treatment of post-CEA RES compared with those of CAS performed for primary carotid stenosis (PRS). METHODS: Data from consecutive patients submitted to CAS at our institution from 2008 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with in-stent RES were excluded. Initially, preoperative risk factors, demographics, intraoperative variables, and perioperative outcomes were analyzed according to the indication groups (PRS and RES). Then, propensity score matching was performed obtaining 2 homogeneous groups of patients. Covariates included were age, gender, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, cardiac disease, chronic renal disease, symptomatic carotid plaque, and positive ipsilateral brain computed tomography scan. Intraoperative data and perioperative outcomes were then compared between the 2 matched groups. RESULTS: Of 480 included patients, 300 (62.5%) underwent CAS for PRS, and 180 (37.5%) for RES. After propensity score analysis (158 patients/group), no significant difference was observed in terms of technical success, number, and type of stent used, except for need of intraoperative atropine administration that was higher in the PRS group (38.6% vs. 13.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). In the perioperative period, composite neurologic event was significantly higher in the PRS group (7.6% vs. 1.9%; P = 0.017). Moreover, need of ionotropic support was higher in the PRS group (8.9% vs. 1.9%; P = 0.0069). Myocardial infarction rate and 30-day mortality were similar in both groups (P = 0.317; P = 1, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In a large single-center experience, CAS for post-CEA RES was associated with a significantly lower risk of any neurologic event and hemodynamic instability in the perioperative period compared with CAS performed for primary carotid lesions. Our results confirm that post-CEA RES may represent an elective indication for CAS.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]