Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Carotid-artery stenting in a high-risk patient population—

single centre, single operator results

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Clinical Research in Cardiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of carotid-artery stenting (CAS) in high-risk patients in routine clinical settings while excluding the impact of multiple operators and the learning curve of individual operators on the outcome, and to determine the impact of individual risk factors, including vascular multimorbidity, on the outcome.

Methods and results

A total of 143 consecutive patients, 100 (69.9%) males and 43 (30.1%) females, mean age 68.7±8 years treated between February 1999 and May 2004 in the Heart Centre Coswig by a single operator for a symptomatic (n=37) and asymptomatic (n=106) on average greater than 70% (82.3±10.7%) or 80% (85.0±9.1%) NASCET carotid-artery stenosis, respectively, were studied. At least one NASCET exclusion criteria was present in 140 patients (97.9%), and vascular multimorbidity was present in 94 (65.7%) patients. In 28 (19.6%) patients there was a complete occlusion of the contralateral internal carotid artery and in 12 (8.4%) patients the procedure was performed prior to emergency coronary bypass surgery. In all, 47 (32.9%) procedures were performed without and 96 (67.1%) were performed with thromboembolic protection. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Combined neurological complications, TIA, PRIND and stroke, occurred in 5 (3.5%) patients, of which 3 (2.1%) were PRIND and 2 (1.4%) were strokes. The neurological complications were more frequent and more severe in symptomatic patients compared to asymptomatic patients (PRIND 2.7% vs 1.9%; stroke 0% vs 5.4%). In patients in whom thromboembolic protection was used, the rate of neurological complications was lower compared to those without protection (PRIND 1.0% vs 4.3%; stroke 1.0% vs. 2.1%). There was no death related to the procedure. Neurological complications were more frequent and more severe in patients with vascular multimorbidity compared to those with an isolated carotid-artery stenosis (4.2% vs 2.0%). The rate of neurological complications was similar in type II diabetics and nondiabetics (2.9% vs 4.1%). In 4.2%, minor complications related to the arterial puncture site were observed (3.5% hematoma not requiring blood transfusion, 0.7% pseudoaneurysm). At follow-up after a minimum of 6 months, 9 (6.3%) patients had died, the majority of whom had died of cardiovascular disease (3.5%).

Conclusions

CAS can be performed with an acceptable risk in high-risk patients in routine clinical settings when it is performed by an experienced operator. The use of thromboembolic protection devices reduces the risk of neurological complications. Presence of vascular multimorbidity, but not diabetes, appears to increase the risk of all causes and of neurological complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yadav J S et al (2004) Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 351:1493–1501

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mathias K, Jäger H, Gißler HM (2000) Die endoluminale Therapie der Carotisstenose. Z Kardiol 89(Suppl 8):VIII/19–VIII/26

    Google Scholar 

  3. CAVATAS investigators (2001) Endovascular versus surgical treatment in patients with carotid stenosis in the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS): a randomised trial. Lancet 37:1729–1737

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brooks WH, McClure RR, Jones MR et al (2001) Carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: randomized trial in a community hospital. J Am Coll Cardiol 38:1589–1595

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shawl F, Kadro W, Domanski MJ et al (2000) Safety and efficacy of elective carotid artery stenting in high risk patiens. J Am Coll Cardiol 35:1721–1728

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mathur A, Roubin GS, Iyer SS et al (1998) Predictors of stroke complicating carotid artery stenting. Circulation 97:1239–1245

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lovett JK, Gallagher PJ, Hands LJ et al (2004) Histological correlates of carotid surface morphology on lumen contrast imaging Circulation 110:2190–2197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Biasi GM, Fronio A, Diethrich EB et al (2004) Carotid plaque echolucency increases the risk of stroke in carotid stenting; The imaging in carotid angioplasty and risk of stroke (ICAROS) study Circulation 110:756–762

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Spagnoli LC, Mauriello A, Sangiorgi G et al (2004) Extracranial thrombotically active carotid plaque as a risk factor for ischemic stroke JAMA 292:1845–1852

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kastrup A, Gröschel K, Krapf et al (2003) Early outcome of carotid angioplasty and stenting with and without cerebral protection devices. A systematic review of literature Stroke 34:813–819

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ahmadi R, Willfort A, Lang W et al (2001) Carotid artery stenting: effect of learning curve and intermediate-term morphological outcome J Endovasc Ther 8:539–546

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators (1991) Benefical effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med 325:445–453

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lanzer P (2003) Vascular multimorbidity in patients with a documented coronary artery disease Z Kardiol 92:650–659

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tübler T, Schlüter M, Dirsch O et al (2001) Balloon-protected carotid artery stenting; Relationship of periprocedural neurological complications with the size of particulate debris Circulation 104:2791–2796

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Roubin GS, New G, Iyer SS 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 103:532–537

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Minar E, Ahmadi R (2003) Erfahrungen mit der endovaskulären Therapie der Karotisstenose J Neurol Neurochir Psychiatr 4(1):27–32

    Google Scholar 

  17. Al-Mubarak N, Roubin GS, Vitek JJ et al (2001) Effect of the distal-balloon protection system on microembolization during carotid stenting Circulation 104:1999–2004

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zahn R, Mark B, Nidermaier N et al (2004) Embolic protection devices for the carotid artery stenting: better results than stenting without protection? E Heart J 25:1550–1558

    Google Scholar 

  19. Whitlow PL, Lylyk P, Londero H et al (2002) Carotid artery stenting protected with an emboli containment system. Stroke 33:1308–1314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lanzer P, Zuehlke H, Jehle P, Silber R-E (2004) Cardiovascular multimorbidity, emerging coalescence of the integrated panvascular approach Z Kardiol 93:259–265

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Lanzer.

Additional information

Grant 2003/2004 Bristol-Myer-Squibb Sapporobogen 8, Munich, Germany

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lanzer, P., Weser, R. & Prettin, C. Carotid-artery stenting in a high-risk patient population—. Clin Res Cardiol 95, 4–12 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-006-0313-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-006-0313-y

Key words

Navigation