Comparison of different carotid stent designs in endovascular therapy of severe carotid artery stenosis

P. Gruber, J. Berberat, T. Kahles, J. Añon, M. Diepers, K. Nedeltchev, L. Remonda
{"title":"Comparison of different carotid stent designs in endovascular therapy of severe carotid artery stenosis","authors":"P. Gruber, J. Berberat, T. Kahles, J. Añon, M. Diepers, K. Nedeltchev, L. Remonda","doi":"10.1177/2514183x20932417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: One of the major periprocedural risks of carotid artery stenting is embolism caused either by plaque debris or by local thrombus forming. Double-layer micromesh stent design has shown to lower the chance of debris embolism but might have a slightly higher risk of local thrombus forming. Thus, we compared two different stent designs regarding safety and outcome profile in elective patients with high-grade carotid artery stenosis using a self-expanding, double-layer micromesh carotid stent system (DLCS) or a self-expanding hybrid carotid stent system (HCS). Methods: A single-center, open-label, retrospective cohort study of 67 consecutive, elective patients with high-grade symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis was executed at a comprehensive stroke center. Outcome measures were reocclusion rate, periprocedural symptomatic ischemic events, as well as other periprocedural complications, and recurrent stroke and mortality at 30 days’ follow-up. Results: Thirty-two patients (24% women, median age 75 years (interquartile range (IQR) 71–80) were treated with DLCS, and 35 patients (29% women, median age 71 years (IQR 63–76) years) with HCS. In both groups, pretreatment carotid stenosis degree was similar (median NASCET of 80%). Successful deployment was achieved in all cases without technical failure, and both groups did not differ in reocclusion rates, recurrent stroke, and mortality within 30 days. Conclusions: DCLS and HCS revealed to have similar safety and outcome profile in elective patients with high-grade symptomatic as well as asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.","PeriodicalId":242430,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Translational Neuroscience","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Translational Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2514183x20932417","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: One of the major periprocedural risks of carotid artery stenting is embolism caused either by plaque debris or by local thrombus forming. Double-layer micromesh stent design has shown to lower the chance of debris embolism but might have a slightly higher risk of local thrombus forming. Thus, we compared two different stent designs regarding safety and outcome profile in elective patients with high-grade carotid artery stenosis using a self-expanding, double-layer micromesh carotid stent system (DLCS) or a self-expanding hybrid carotid stent system (HCS). Methods: A single-center, open-label, retrospective cohort study of 67 consecutive, elective patients with high-grade symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis was executed at a comprehensive stroke center. Outcome measures were reocclusion rate, periprocedural symptomatic ischemic events, as well as other periprocedural complications, and recurrent stroke and mortality at 30 days’ follow-up. Results: Thirty-two patients (24% women, median age 75 years (interquartile range (IQR) 71–80) were treated with DLCS, and 35 patients (29% women, median age 71 years (IQR 63–76) years) with HCS. In both groups, pretreatment carotid stenosis degree was similar (median NASCET of 80%). Successful deployment was achieved in all cases without technical failure, and both groups did not differ in reocclusion rates, recurrent stroke, and mortality within 30 days. Conclusions: DCLS and HCS revealed to have similar safety and outcome profile in elective patients with high-grade symptomatic as well as asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.
不同颈动脉支架设计在重度颈动脉狭窄血管内治疗中的比较
背景:颈动脉支架植入术的主要围手术期风险之一是由斑块碎片或局部血栓形成引起的栓塞。双层微网支架设计降低了碎片栓塞的机会,但可能会有局部血栓形成的风险略高。因此,我们比较了两种不同的支架设计对选择性颈动脉高度狭窄患者的安全性和结果,使用自膨胀双层微孔颈动脉支架系统(dlc)或自膨胀混合型颈动脉支架系统(HCS)。方法:在综合卒中中心进行一项单中心、开放标签、回顾性队列研究,对67例连续、选择性的有高度症状和无症状的颈动脉狭窄患者进行研究。结果测量为再闭塞率、围手术期症状性缺血事件以及其他围手术期并发症、30天随访时卒中复发和死亡率。结果:32例患者(24%女性,中位年龄75岁(四分位间距(IQR) 71 - 80)接受dlc治疗,35例患者(29%女性,中位年龄71岁(IQR 63-76))接受HCS治疗。两组预处理后颈动脉狭窄程度相似(中位NASCET为80%)。所有病例均成功部署,没有出现技术故障,两组在30天内的再闭塞率、卒中复发和死亡率方面没有差异。结论:DCLS和HCS在有高度症状和无症状颈动脉狭窄的选择性患者中具有相似的安全性和结果。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信