CGuard双层支架和颈动脉壁支架用于选择性颈动脉支架置入的比较评价:一项回顾性多中心研究。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Yves Leonard Voss, Mousa Zidan, Alexander Radbruch, Igor Fischer, Franziska Dorn, Hannes Nordmeyer
{"title":"CGuard双层支架和颈动脉壁支架用于选择性颈动脉支架置入的比较评价:一项回顾性多中心研究。","authors":"Yves Leonard Voss, Mousa Zidan, Alexander Radbruch, Igor Fischer, Franziska Dorn, Hannes Nordmeyer","doi":"10.1007/s00234-025-03764-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the CGuard dual-layer stent with its mesh embolic protection system (EPS) in elective cases for treatment of internal carotid artery stenosis and compares it to the Carotid Wallstent as benchmark.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective, multicenter study, we analyzed data from consecutive patients who underwent carotid artery stenting with CGuard at two high-volume neurointerventional centers and compared them with prior consecutive patients treated with Carotid Wallstent (CWS), with and without a balloon guiding catheter (BGC) as protection, at the same institutions. Patient demographics, procedural details, clinical complications, early in-stent thrombosis and occlusion rates, and late follow-up restenosis rates were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 428 patients were treated, 144 with the CGuard stent, 203 with CWS + BGC and 83 with CWS-BGC, the majority of patients for symptomatic stenoses. Technical success was achieved in 98.6% of CGuard patients. No clinical complications were observed in CGuard patients, however the clinical complication rate was 2.96% (6/203) for CWS + BGC and 4.94% (4/83) for CWS-BGC patients (p = 0.052). The in-hospital stent occlusion rate was 0.69% (1/144) for CGuard and 2.1% (6/286) in CWS ± BGC patients (p = 0.49). On long-term follow-up (mean 9.9 months) the CGuard demonstrated a comparatively low rate of restenosis (6.25%) and retreatment (2.1%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The CGuard dual-layer stent was safe and effective for carotid artery stenting in our series. Its design appears to contribute to a low risk of periprocedural complications, high technical success rate, while maintaining restenosis rates comparable to the Carotid Wallstent.</p>","PeriodicalId":19422,"journal":{"name":"Neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of the CGuard dual-layer stent and Carotid Wallstent for elective carotid artery stenting: a retrospective multicenter study.\",\"authors\":\"Yves Leonard Voss, Mousa Zidan, Alexander Radbruch, Igor Fischer, Franziska Dorn, Hannes Nordmeyer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00234-025-03764-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the CGuard dual-layer stent with its mesh embolic protection system (EPS) in elective cases for treatment of internal carotid artery stenosis and compares it to the Carotid Wallstent as benchmark.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective, multicenter study, we analyzed data from consecutive patients who underwent carotid artery stenting with CGuard at two high-volume neurointerventional centers and compared them with prior consecutive patients treated with Carotid Wallstent (CWS), with and without a balloon guiding catheter (BGC) as protection, at the same institutions. Patient demographics, procedural details, clinical complications, early in-stent thrombosis and occlusion rates, and late follow-up restenosis rates were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 428 patients were treated, 144 with the CGuard stent, 203 with CWS + BGC and 83 with CWS-BGC, the majority of patients for symptomatic stenoses. Technical success was achieved in 98.6% of CGuard patients. No clinical complications were observed in CGuard patients, however the clinical complication rate was 2.96% (6/203) for CWS + BGC and 4.94% (4/83) for CWS-BGC patients (p = 0.052). The in-hospital stent occlusion rate was 0.69% (1/144) for CGuard and 2.1% (6/286) in CWS ± BGC patients (p = 0.49). On long-term follow-up (mean 9.9 months) the CGuard demonstrated a comparatively low rate of restenosis (6.25%) and retreatment (2.1%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The CGuard dual-layer stent was safe and effective for carotid artery stenting in our series. Its design appears to contribute to a low risk of periprocedural complications, high technical success rate, while maintaining restenosis rates comparable to the Carotid Wallstent.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19422,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuroradiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuroradiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-025-03764-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-025-03764-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评价CGuard双层支架及其网状栓塞保护系统(EPS)在选择性病例中治疗颈内动脉狭窄的安全性和有效性,并将其与颈动脉壁支架作为基准进行比较。方法:在这项回顾性的多中心研究中,我们分析了在两个大容量神经介入中心连续接受颈动脉支架植管术的患者的数据,并将其与先前在同一机构连续接受颈动脉壁支架(CWS)治疗的患者进行了比较,其中有和没有气囊导尿管(BGC)作为保护。评估患者人口统计学、手术细节、临床并发症、早期支架内血栓和闭塞率以及后期随访再狭窄率。结果:共治疗428例患者,CGuard支架144例,CWS + BGC 203例,CWS-BGC 83例,大部分患者出现症状性狭窄。98.6%的CGuard患者获得了技术上的成功。CGuard组无临床并发症,CWS + BGC组临床并发症发生率为2.96% (6/203),CWS-BGC组临床并发症发生率为4.94% (4/83)(p = 0.052)。CGuard组住院支架闭塞率为0.69% (1/144),CWS±BGC组为2.1% (6/286)(p = 0.49)。在长期随访(平均9.9个月)中,CGuard显示出相对较低的再狭窄率(6.25%)和再治疗率(2.1%)。结论:CGuard双层支架在我们的研究中是安全有效的颈动脉支架植入术。其设计似乎有助于降低围手术期并发症的风险,高技术成功率,同时保持与颈动脉支架相当的再狭窄率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative evaluation of the CGuard dual-layer stent and Carotid Wallstent for elective carotid artery stenting: a retrospective multicenter study.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the CGuard dual-layer stent with its mesh embolic protection system (EPS) in elective cases for treatment of internal carotid artery stenosis and compares it to the Carotid Wallstent as benchmark.

Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter study, we analyzed data from consecutive patients who underwent carotid artery stenting with CGuard at two high-volume neurointerventional centers and compared them with prior consecutive patients treated with Carotid Wallstent (CWS), with and without a balloon guiding catheter (BGC) as protection, at the same institutions. Patient demographics, procedural details, clinical complications, early in-stent thrombosis and occlusion rates, and late follow-up restenosis rates were assessed.

Results: A total of 428 patients were treated, 144 with the CGuard stent, 203 with CWS + BGC and 83 with CWS-BGC, the majority of patients for symptomatic stenoses. Technical success was achieved in 98.6% of CGuard patients. No clinical complications were observed in CGuard patients, however the clinical complication rate was 2.96% (6/203) for CWS + BGC and 4.94% (4/83) for CWS-BGC patients (p = 0.052). The in-hospital stent occlusion rate was 0.69% (1/144) for CGuard and 2.1% (6/286) in CWS ± BGC patients (p = 0.49). On long-term follow-up (mean 9.9 months) the CGuard demonstrated a comparatively low rate of restenosis (6.25%) and retreatment (2.1%).

Conclusion: The CGuard dual-layer stent was safe and effective for carotid artery stenting in our series. Its design appears to contribute to a low risk of periprocedural complications, high technical success rate, while maintaining restenosis rates comparable to the Carotid Wallstent.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neuroradiology
Neuroradiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.60%
发文量
214
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuroradiology aims to provide state-of-the-art medical and scientific information in the fields of Neuroradiology, Neurosciences, Neurology, Psychiatry, Neurosurgery, and related medical specialities. Neuroradiology as the official Journal of the European Society of Neuroradiology receives submissions from all parts of the world and publishes peer-reviewed original research, comprehensive reviews, educational papers, opinion papers, and short reports on exceptional clinical observations and new technical developments in the field of Neuroimaging and Neurointervention. The journal has subsections for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Advanced Neuroimaging, Paediatric Neuroradiology, Head-Neck-ENT Radiology, Spine Neuroradiology, and for submissions from Japan. Neuroradiology aims to provide new knowledge about and insights into the function and pathology of the human nervous system that may help to better diagnose and treat nervous system diseases. Neuroradiology is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows the COPE core practices. Neuroradiology prefers articles that are free of bias, self-critical regarding limitations, transparent and clear in describing study participants, methods, and statistics, and short in presenting results. Before peer-review all submissions are automatically checked by iThenticate to assess for potential overlap in prior publication.
×
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