4.3 Article

Starting a carotid artery stenting program is safe

Journal

CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS
Volume 71, Issue 4, Pages 469-473

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.21434

Keywords

carotid artery stenting; learning curve; training

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Little is known on the performance of newly initiated carotid artery stenting (CAS) programs. The safety of the procedure is being questioned following the publication of the EVA-3S trial, a study criticized for the limited interventional experience required to enroll patients. Methods: Within a newly started academic CAS program, patient data and outcomes were collected prospectively. The outcomes of the first 100 consecutive patients treated are reported. A CAS-fellowship-trained interventionalist was involved in all procedures. All patients underwent clinical assessment by a neurologist before and after the procedure, and serial ECG and cardiac enzymes were routinely obtained. Primary outcome measures included 30-day major adverse events (MAE), defined as death, stroke, or myocardial infarction, while on follow-up deaths and ipsilateral strokes were added. Results: Between July 2003 and November 2006, 92 patients had a single internal carotid artery treated, while 7 underwent staged bilateral CAS. In one patient, the procedure was aborted prior to lesion treatment. The 30-day MAE rate per procedure was 1.9% (one major and one minor stroke). By a mean follow-up of 16 months (range 2-42 months), one patient had died of refractory heart failure, while one patient had a minor ipsilateral stroke and three had minor contralateral strokes, corresponding to total MAE per patient of 4%. The rate of any stroke or death was 7%. The rate of restenosis >= 50% per lesion by ultrasound was 3.8%. Conclusion: This single center experience suggests that it is safe to start a CAS program following dedicated fellowship. (C) 2008 Wiley-Liss, inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available