{"title":"Efficacy and safety of carotid endarterectomy in restenosis after carotid stenosis stenting","authors":"Hua Yang, Chun-ou Tian, Qianghua He","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1671-8925.2019.11.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in restenosis after carotid stenosis stenting. \n \n \nMethods \nIn a prospective study, 29 patients with restenosis after carotid artery stenosis stenting, admitted to our hospital from January 2017 to December 2017, were selected as study group; and 29 patients with moderate or severe carotid artery stenosis matched with age, gender and course of disease and admitted to our hospital at the same period were selected as control group. All of them were treated with CEA, and patients in the study group also had their stents removed. The patients in the two groups were compared in terms of surgical indicators, efficacy, perioperative complications and incidence of adverse events during follow-up. \n \n \nResults \nThe success rate of surgery was 100% in both groups; the intraoperative flow rate was 10.34% in the control group and 17.24% in the study group without statistically significant difference (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in carotid artery occlusion times and operation times between the two groups (P>0.05). The lengths of skin incision and carotid artery incision in the study group were significantly longer than those in the control group (P 0.05). The incidence of perioperative complications was 10.34% in the study group, and the incidence of adverse events was 10.34% in the follow-up period, and 3.45% and 6.90% in the control group, respectively, without statistically significant differences (P>0.05). \n \n \nConclusions \nCEA is effective in the treatment of restenosis after carotid stenosis stenting. Because of stent dissection, the skin and carotid artery incision lengths are relatively long, but it does not increase the surgery risks and complications. \n \n \nKey words: \nCarotid endarterectomy; Stent molding; Carotid artery stenosis; Curative effect; Safety","PeriodicalId":10104,"journal":{"name":"中华神经医学杂志","volume":"59 1","pages":"1098-1102"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华神经医学杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1671-8925.2019.11.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in restenosis after carotid stenosis stenting.
Methods
In a prospective study, 29 patients with restenosis after carotid artery stenosis stenting, admitted to our hospital from January 2017 to December 2017, were selected as study group; and 29 patients with moderate or severe carotid artery stenosis matched with age, gender and course of disease and admitted to our hospital at the same period were selected as control group. All of them were treated with CEA, and patients in the study group also had their stents removed. The patients in the two groups were compared in terms of surgical indicators, efficacy, perioperative complications and incidence of adverse events during follow-up.
Results
The success rate of surgery was 100% in both groups; the intraoperative flow rate was 10.34% in the control group and 17.24% in the study group without statistically significant difference (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in carotid artery occlusion times and operation times between the two groups (P>0.05). The lengths of skin incision and carotid artery incision in the study group were significantly longer than those in the control group (P 0.05). The incidence of perioperative complications was 10.34% in the study group, and the incidence of adverse events was 10.34% in the follow-up period, and 3.45% and 6.90% in the control group, respectively, without statistically significant differences (P>0.05).
Conclusions
CEA is effective in the treatment of restenosis after carotid stenosis stenting. Because of stent dissection, the skin and carotid artery incision lengths are relatively long, but it does not increase the surgery risks and complications.
Key words:
Carotid endarterectomy; Stent molding; Carotid artery stenosis; Curative effect; Safety