4.3 Article

Comparative analysis of CGUARD embolic prevention stent with Casper-RX and Wallstent for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE
卷 75, 期 -, 页码 117-121

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2020.03.008

关键词

Carotid artery stenting; Carotid artery stenosis; CGUARD; Casper-RX; Wallstent; Stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stent protected Angioplasty of extracranial carotid artery stenosis using the dual-layered CGUARD stent is a novel treatment option. In this study we evaluate the feasibility and the safety of the CGUARD in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients in comparison to Casper-RX and Wallstent. This is a multi-center study of consecutive patients treated with the CGUARD, Casper-RX and Wallstent at two German high volume neurovascular centers between April 2017 and May 2018. Patient characteristics, neuroimaging data and angiographic outcome were retrospectively analyzed. The primary end points of the study were acute occlusion of the carotid stent and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH). Carotid artery stenting was performed in 76 patients; of those 26 (34%) were treated with the CGUARD, 25 (33%) with Casper-RX, and 25 (33%) with Wallstent. In 58/76 (76%) cases carotid artery stenosis was symptomatic with a median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale of 4. Angioplasty and stenting as part of a mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke was performed in 25/76 (33%) patients. Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the treatment groups, except for a higher portion of scheduled cases in the Casper-RX group. There were no significant differences in the rate of acute in stent occlusions (CGUARD, 2/26 (8%); Casper-RX, 1/25(4%), Wallstent, 1/25 (4%)) and postinterventional sICH (1/26 (4%), 0/25(0%), 0/25 (0%)). Clinical outcome at discharge did not differ between groups. Treatment of carotid artery stenosis using CGUARD is feasible with a good safety profile comparable to that of Casper-RX and Wallstent. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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