4.6 Article

Use of Dual-Layered Stents for Carotid Artery Angioplasty

Journal

JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS
Volume 13, Issue 14, Pages 1709-1715

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.03.048

Keywords

carotid artery disease; carotid artery stenting; stroke

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES This study sought to evaluate 1-year safety and efficacy of dual-layered mesh-covered carotid stent systems (DLS) for carotid artery stenting (CAS). BACKGROUND Small clinical studies evaluating 1-year outcomes of CAS performed with 2 available DLS, Roadsaver (RS) (Terumo Corp., Tokyo, Japan) and CGuard (CG) (InspireMD, Boston, Massachusetts), have been published. METHODS The authors performed an individual patient-level meta-analysis including studies enrolling more than 100 CAS with DLS. The primary endpoint was the death and stroke rate; secondary endpoints were restenosis and in-stent thrombosis rates at 1 year. RESULTS Patients were divided into 2 groups according to DLS (RS n = 250; CG n = 306). At 1 year, 11 patients died (1.97%), 7 patients in the group RS (2.8%) and 4 patients in the CG one (1.31%); and 10 strokes occurred, 4 in the group RS (1.6%) and 6 in the CG one (1.96%). Overall death and stroke rate was 3.77% (n = 21), 11 events in the group RS group (4.4%) and 10 in the CG group (3.27%). Symptomatic status was the only predictor of death and or stroke. At 1 year, restenosis occurred in 12 patients (2.1%), 10 in the group RS (4%) and 2 in the CG one (0.65%) (p = 0.007). In-stent thrombosis occurred in 1 patient (0.18%) in the CG group (0.32%). RS use was the only independent predictor of restenosis. CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that DLS use for CAS is associated with a low 1-year death and stroke rate, and the specific DLS stent used could affect the restenosis rate. (C) 2020 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available