4.0 Article

Safety and feasibility of carotid revascularization in patients with cerebral embolic strokes associated with carotid webs and histopathology revisited

期刊

INTERVENTIONAL NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 235-240

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1591019920980271

关键词

Stroke; carotid web; histopathology; carotid stent

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the safety and feasibility of CAS in symptomatic carotid webs. CAS was found to be a feasible and safe treatment for patients with ischemic embolic strokes caused by carotid web, with no recurrent strokes or TIAs occurring during the follow-up period.
Introduction Carotid web is increasingly recognized as the cause of ischemic embolic strokes in younger patients. The best way to treat carotid web is debatable and carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been reported as a treatment for the carotid web in only a few case series. In this study we evaluate the safety and feasibility of CAS in symptomatic carotid webs and examined the histopathology of a carotid web. Materials and methods At our institution between 2017 and 2019, 10 consecutive patients with symptomatic carotid webs were treated. We retrospectively analyzed the data for patient demographics, clinical presentation, imaging, treatment methodology and follow up. Results All the patients had presented with ipsilateral embolic stroke. The mean age at presentation was 50 years (range 37-71) with seven female and three male patients. All patients underwent CAS except one patient who underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA). In one stented patient, there was significant hypotension in the post-procedural period lasting a week. The patients were followed for a mean of 5.5 months (range one day-12 months). No recurrent stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) occurred. Surgical pathological studies confirmed fibromuscular dysplasia in one specimen. Conclusion In our experience CAS for carotid web is feasible and safe in patients presenting with ischemic embolic strokes.

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

4.0
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