4.5 Article

Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in a Predominantly Symptomatic Real-World Patient Population

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 127, 期 -, 页码 E722-E726

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.254

关键词

Carotid; Endarterectomy; Outcomes; Restenosis; Stenting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are well-established treatments that have been shown to decrease stroke recurrence in patients with underlying carotid artery disease. We assessed clinical outcome, safety, and restenosis rates for patients who underwent standardized CEA or CAS at our tertiary care center using patient selection criteria based on available scientific evidence. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients who underwent CEA or CAS between 2009 and 2016. RESULTS: In total, 314 cases (204 with CEA and 110 with CAS) were analyzed. Patients were predominantly white (84.4%), men (61.1%) with hypertension (86.9%) and hyperlipidemia (81.8%). Most patients (84.5%) had symptomatic carotid disease. No significant differences were observed in median postoperative National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and modified Rankin scale (mRS) scores based on pretreatment symptomatic status or treatment modality (CEA vs. CAS). Most patients (85.9%) had favorable outcomes (mRS score 0-2) at a median follow-up of 11.7 months (interquartile range, 1.8-28.8). The perioperative complication rate was low (3.2%), and permanent neurologic deficit was seen in only 3 patients (1%). Restenosis was found in 7.3%, without significant difference between CEA and CAS at last follow-up. Restenosis was asymptomatic in most patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings in a real-world predominantly symptomatic cohort demonstrate that favorable patient outcomes and low restenosis and complication rates can be achieved with both CEA and CAS by the utilization of a consistent institutional patient selection and treatment process.

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

4.5
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