Neurological Sciences

, Volume 34, Issue 5, pp 723–728 | Cite as

Periprocedural outcome for patients with carotid stenosis treated with endovascular therapy: a single center evaluation

  • Nicola Giannini
  • Alberto Chiti
  • Gino Gialdini
  • Eva Terni
  • Marta Gennaro
  • Guido Andrea Lazzarotti
  • Michele Puglioli
  • Giovanni Orlandi
Original Article

Abstract

Endovascular procedures are a less invasive revascularization strategies than endoarterectomy for carotid stenosis, but to date Guidelines recommend surgery for a major periprocedural safety. Evidences come from randomized studies where operator’s experience in endovascular group was not considered. We retrospectively evaluated 524 endovascular procedures (carotid angioplasty ± stenting, CAS) performed between 1996 and 2010 on 486 patients (mean age 71.3 ± 7.8 years) with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis from a single center. We evaluated efficacy (residual stenosis ≤30 % after postprocedural angiography) and safety [minor (TIAs or myocardial infarcts) and major (stroke or death) complications in the first 30 days] of procedures and correlated them with the increasing experience of the operator. CAS was successful in 504/524 cases (96.2 %); unsuccessful procedures occurred more frequently in case of angioplasty alone rather than angioplasty and stenting (13/61, 21.3 % vs. 7/463, 1.5 %, OR 17.64, 95 % CI 6.69–46.06). 17/524 (3.2 %) CAS met the combined safety endpoint: stroke in 2.4 % and death in 0.8 %; the rate of disabling stroke/death was 1.6 %. Center experience was inversely related to the rate of stroke/death (R 2 = 0.9375), passing from 5.0 % after 100 CAS to 2.8 % after 500 CAS; for disabling stroke/death (R 2 = 0.9386), the rate was 4 % after 100 CAS and 1.6 % after 500 CAS. CAS is an effective and safe revascularization procedure in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, if effected in experienced centers. The use of carotid artery stenting than angioplasty alone and emboli protection devices can much more improve the previous considerations.

Keywords

Angioplasty and stenting Asymptomatic carotid stenosis Carotid stenosis Neuroradiology Stenting Stents 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Petty GW, Brown RD Jr, Whisnant JP, Sicks JD, O’Fallon WM, Wiebers DO (1999) Ischemic stroke subtypes: a population-based study of incidence and risk factors. Stroke 30:2513–2516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fairhead JF, Mehta Z, Rothwell PM (2005) Population-based study of delays in carotid imaging and surgery and the risk of recurrent stroke. Neurology 65:371–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    CAVATAS Investigators (2001) Endovascular versus surgical treatment in patients with carotid stenosis in the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS): a randomized trial. Lancet 357:1729–1737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yadav JS, Wholey MH, Kuntz RE, Fayad P, Katzen BT, Mishkel GJ et al (2004) The Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy Investigators (SAPPHIRE). Protected carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 351:1493–1501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    SPACE Collaborative Group, Ringleb PA, Allenberg J, Brückmann H, Eckstein HH, Fraedrich G, Hartmann M et al (2006) 30 day results from the SPACE trial of stent-protected angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 368:1239–1247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mas JL, Chatellier G, Beyssen B, Branchereau A, Moulin T, Becquemin JP et al (2006) EVA-3S Investigators. Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med 355:1660–1671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Setacci C, Cremonesi A (2007) SPACE and EVA-3S: the need of standards for carotid stenting. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 33:48–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Carotid Stenting Study investigators, Ederle J, Dobson J, Featherstone RL, Bonati LH, van der Worp HB, de Borst GJ et al (2010) Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 375:985–997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brott TG, Hobson RW 2nd, Howard G, Roubin GS, Clark WM, Brooks W et al (2010) Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 363:11–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators (1991) Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med 325:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wholey MH, Wholey M, Mathias K, Roubin GS, Diethrich EB, Henry M et al (2000) Global experience in cervical carotid artery stent placement. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 50:160–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Setacci C, Chisci E, Setacci F, Iacoponi F, de Donato G, Rossi A (2010) Siena carotid artery stenting score: a risk modelling study for individual patients. Stroke 41:1259–1265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roubin GS, New G, Iyer SS, Vitek JJ, Al-Mubarak N, Liu MW et al (2001) Immediate and late clinical outcomes of carotid artery stenting in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis: a 5-year prospective analysis. Circulation 103:532–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Orlandi G, Parenti G, Bertolucci A, Murri L (1997) Silent cerebral microembolism in asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid artery stenoses of low and high degree. Eur Neurol 38:39–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Orlandi G, Parenti G, Landucci Pellegrini L, Sartucci F, Paoli C et al (1999) Plaque surface and microembolic signals in moderate carotid stenosis. Ital J Neurol Sci 20:179–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    The SAFE study group, Grube E, Webb J (1999) The SAFE study: multicenter evaluation of a protection catheter system for distal embolization in coronary venous bypass grafts SVG’s. J Am Coll Cardiol 33:37AGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicola Giannini
    • 1
  • Alberto Chiti
    • 1
  • Gino Gialdini
    • 1
  • Eva Terni
    • 1
  • Marta Gennaro
    • 1
  • Guido Andrea Lazzarotti
    • 2
  • Michele Puglioli
    • 2
  • Giovanni Orlandi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Neuroscience, Clinic of NeurologyUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  2. 2.Clinic of NeuroradiologyUniversity of PisaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations