United Kingdom Carotid Artery Stent Registry: Short- and Long-Term Outcomes
Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has evolved to treat carotid artery disease with the intention of prevent stroke. The British Society of Interventional Radiologists developed a voluntary registry to monitor the practice of this novel procedure. We present the data from the United Kingdom (UK) CAS registry for short and long-term outcomes for symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid disease.
The UK CAS registry collected data from 1998 to 2010 from 31 hospitals across the UK for 1,154 patients. All interventions were enrolled in the registry for both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Initial entry forms were completed for each patient entered with data including indications, demographic data, CAS data (including stents and protection device details) and 30-day outcomes. Complications were documented. Follow-up data were collected at yearly intervals.
Nine hundred fifty-three (83 %) symptomatic and 201 (17 %) asymptomatic patients were enrolled into the registry. The 30-day all stroke and death rates for symptomatic patients were 5.5 and 2.2 % for those with asymptomatic disease. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.7 % for symptomatic and 0.6 % for asymptomatic patients. For symptomatic patients undergoing CAS, the 7-year all-cause mortality rate was 22.2 % and for asymptomatic patients 18.1 %. The 7-year all-cause mortality and disabling stroke rates were 25.3 and 19.4 %, respectively.
These data indicate that outside of the tight constraints of a randomised trial, CAS provides effective prophylaxis against stroke and death.
KeywordsCarotid artery Arterial intervention Stenting
A great many thanks to all of the clinicians who contributed data to this registry over many years and continued to provide essential follow-up data. Thanks are also due to A. Counsell, J. Saeed, M. Ireland, and S. Inglis for their help with data collection and data entry. The invaluable help of Dendrite Clinical Systems, including Robin Kinsman and Peter Walton, in setting up the registry and analyzing the data, is acknowledged and thanked.
Conflict of interest
S. Goode, T. Cleveland, and P. A. Gaines were funded by Study Grant Gore. T. Cleveland also holds a consultancy at Boston Scientific.
- 3.NICE (2006) Carotid artery stent placement for carotid stenosisGoogle Scholar
- 4.Goode SD, Cleveland TJ, Gaines PA (2011) First BSIR carotid stent registry reportGoogle Scholar
- 6.NICE (2011) IPG389 carotid artery stent placement for symptomatic extracranial carotid stenosisGoogle Scholar
- 24.Ederle J, Bonati LH, Dobson J et al (2009) Endovascular treatment with angioplasty or stenting versus endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis in the carotid and vertebral artery transluminal angioplasty study (CAVATAS): long-term follow-up of a randomised trial. Lancet Neurol 8(10):898–907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Pieniazek P, Musialek P, Kablak-Ziembicka A et al (2008) Carotid artery stenting with patient- and lesion-tailored selection of the neuroprotection system and stent type: early and 5-year results from a prospective academic registry of 535 consecutive procedures (TARGET-CAS). J Endovascular Ther 15(3):249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Safian RD, Bacharach JM, Ansel GM et al (2004) Carotid stenting with a new system for distal embolic protection and stenting in high-risk patients: the carotid revascularization with ev3 arterial technology evolution (CREATE) feasibility trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 63(1):1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar