Standard Carotid Endarterectomy versus Carotid Artery Stenting with Closed-Cell Stent Design and Distal Embolic Protection: does the age matter?

IF 1.1 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Translational Medicine at UniSa Pub Date : 2019-01-06 DOI:10.14273/UNISA-2722
A. Peluso, D. Turchino, A. Petrone, A. Giribono, R. Bracale, L. del Guercio, U. Bracale
{"title":"Standard Carotid Endarterectomy versus Carotid Artery Stenting with Closed-Cell Stent Design and Distal Embolic Protection: does the age matter?","authors":"A. Peluso, D. Turchino, A. Petrone, A. Giribono, R. Bracale, L. del Guercio, U. Bracale","doi":"10.14273/UNISA-2722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) is considered the gold standard for treatment of symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid disease. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a less invasive approach and therefore could be considered a viable alternative to CEA, especially in high-risk patients or those with relative contraindications to CEA (i.e. actinic stenosis, post-CEA restenosis, previous neck or tracheostomy surgery, contralateral laryngeal nerve paralysis, etc.). Methods The aim of this study is to evaluate the short- and medium-term outcomes of CAS performed with a single type of closed-cell stent design and distal filter protection by comparing the procedure with CEA based upon 3 endpoints: overall survival rate, stroke free survival rate and restenosis free survival rate. The same endpoints were also evaluated in 2 different age groups, more and less than 70 years, to show possible age-based differences on outcomes. Among 105 patients (77 males, 28 females), 74 were submitted to CEA and 31 were subject to CAS. In all cases the same self-expanding stent with closed-cell design (XACT Carotid Stent, Abbott Vascular) and the same distal embolic protection device (Emboshield NAV, Abbott Vascular) were employed. Results At 12 months, no statistically significant difference was observed in overall survival rates (CEA 93.2% vs CAS 93.5%, p=0.967) and restenosis free survival rates (CEA 94.5% vs CAS 96.8%, p=0.662). An increased stroke free survival rate was observed in the CEA group when compared to the CAS group (CEA 100.0% vs CAS 93.5%, p=0.028). The age-based endpoints didn’t show any significant difference. Conclusion These results suggest that CEA still remains the gold standard of treatment for carotid stenosis given its greater efficacy in the prevention of stroke CAS. However, CAS could be considered as an alternative treatment to CEA to be used in select cases only.","PeriodicalId":54170,"journal":{"name":"Translational Medicine at UniSa","volume":"19 1","pages":"60 - 65"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Medicine at UniSa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14273/UNISA-2722","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) is considered the gold standard for treatment of symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid disease. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a less invasive approach and therefore could be considered a viable alternative to CEA, especially in high-risk patients or those with relative contraindications to CEA (i.e. actinic stenosis, post-CEA restenosis, previous neck or tracheostomy surgery, contralateral laryngeal nerve paralysis, etc.). Methods The aim of this study is to evaluate the short- and medium-term outcomes of CAS performed with a single type of closed-cell stent design and distal filter protection by comparing the procedure with CEA based upon 3 endpoints: overall survival rate, stroke free survival rate and restenosis free survival rate. The same endpoints were also evaluated in 2 different age groups, more and less than 70 years, to show possible age-based differences on outcomes. Among 105 patients (77 males, 28 females), 74 were submitted to CEA and 31 were subject to CAS. In all cases the same self-expanding stent with closed-cell design (XACT Carotid Stent, Abbott Vascular) and the same distal embolic protection device (Emboshield NAV, Abbott Vascular) were employed. Results At 12 months, no statistically significant difference was observed in overall survival rates (CEA 93.2% vs CAS 93.5%, p=0.967) and restenosis free survival rates (CEA 94.5% vs CAS 96.8%, p=0.662). An increased stroke free survival rate was observed in the CEA group when compared to the CAS group (CEA 100.0% vs CAS 93.5%, p=0.028). The age-based endpoints didn’t show any significant difference. Conclusion These results suggest that CEA still remains the gold standard of treatment for carotid stenosis given its greater efficacy in the prevention of stroke CAS. However, CAS could be considered as an alternative treatment to CEA to be used in select cases only.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
标准颈动脉内膜切除术与封闭细胞支架设计和远端栓塞保护的颈动脉支架置入:年龄重要吗?
颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)被认为是治疗有症状和无症状颈动脉疾病的金标准。颈动脉支架术(CAS)是一种侵入性较小的方法,因此可以被认为是CEA的可行替代方案,特别是高风险患者或对CEA有相对禁忌症的患者(如光化狭窄、CEA后再狭窄、既往颈部或气管切开术、对侧喉神经麻痹等)基于3个终点:总生存率、无卒中生存率和无再狭窄生存率将该手术与CEA进行比较。同样的终点也在两个不同的年龄组(70岁以上和70岁以下)中进行了评估,以显示可能基于年龄的结果差异。105名患者(77名男性,28名女性)中,74名接受了CEA,31名接受了CAS。在所有病例中,均使用相同的封闭细胞设计自膨胀支架(XACT颈动脉支架,Abbott Vascular)和相同的远端栓塞保护装置(Emboshield NAV,Abbott Vescular)。结果12个月时,总生存率(CEA 93.2%vs CAS 93.5%,p=0.967)和无再狭窄生存率(CEA94.5%vs CAS 96.8%,p=0.662)无统计学显著差异。与CAS组相比,CEA组无卒中生存率增加(CEA100.0%vs CAS 93.5%,p=0.028)。基于年龄的终点没有显示任何显著差异。结论CEA在预防脑卒中CAS中具有较高的疗效,仍是颈动脉狭窄治疗的金标准。然而,CAS可被视为CEA的替代治疗方法,仅用于部分病例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Translational Medicine at UniSa
Translational Medicine at UniSa MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊最新文献
Anaesthesiologist-led Multidisciplinary Model for Evaluating High-risk Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) Surgical Patients. Instrumental Diagnosis of Placenta Accreta and Obstetric and Perinatal Outcomes: Literature Review and Observational Study. Physical Activity in Cancer Rehabilitation and Technology Acceptance: Results From the "Oncology in Motion" Project. Novel Targets and Strategies Addressing Residual Cardiovascular Risk in Post-acute Coronary Syndromes Patients. Telerehabilitation: A Solution for Patients After Hip Fracture?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1