4.4 Article

Treatment of intracranial atherosclerotic arterial stenoses with a balloon-expandable cobalt chromium stent (Coroflex Blue): procedural safety, efficacy, and midterm patency

期刊

NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 52, 期 7, 页码 645-651

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00234-009-0615-7

关键词

Atherosclerosis; Intracranial stenosis; Stent; Endovascular; Cobalt chromium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluated the coronary balloon-expandable cobalt chromium stent Coroflex Blue for the treatment of intracranial atherosclerotic arterial stenoses (IAAS). Between March 2007 and October 2007, a total of 25 patients (20 male, age median 67 years) with 30 IAAS underwent endovascular treatment using Coroflex Blue stents (B. Braun, Germany). Location and degree of target stenoses before and after treatment and at follow-up and adverse clinical sequelae of treatment were registered. Angiographic follow-up was scheduled for 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after the treatment. The 30 treated lesions were located as follows: nine in intracranial-extradural internal carotid artery (ICA), three in intradural ICA, five in middle cerebral artery, eight in intradural vertebral artery, and five in basilar artery. The technical success rate was 100%. The degree of stenoses prior to and after treatment was 61 +/- 2% and 26 +/- 3% (mean +/- SE), respectively. A residual stenosis of < 50% was achieved in 29 (97%) procedures. Treatment was uneventful in 28 out of 30 procedures (93%); one patient suffered a transient and one patient a permanent neurological deficit. Angiographic follow-up was available in all of the patients (100%) after 15.2 months (median) and showed significant (i.e., more than 50%) degree of recurrent stenosis in 11 (37%) of the lesions. Retreatment was performed in 11 (37%) lesions. The Coroflex Blue stent is easily inserted and safely deployed into intracranial arteries. The incidence of recurrent stenoses remains a concern. Stringent angiographic and clinical follow-up and retreatment are therefore mandatory.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据