4.5 Article

Carotid artery stenting with a new-generation double-mesh stent in three high-volume Italian centres: clinical results of a multidisciplinary approach

期刊

EUROINTERVENTION
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 E677-E683

出版社

EUROPA EDITION
DOI: 10.4244/EIJV12I5A109

关键词

carotid stenting; double-mesh stent; optical coherence tomography; plaque prolapse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is still associated with higher periprocedural cerebrovascular events (CEs) compared to vascular surgery. The Roadsaver carotid artery stent is a double layer micromesh stent which reduces plaque prolapse and embolisation by improving plaque coverage. Its clinical impact on neurological outcome was unknown. The aim of this study was therefore to report the clinical results of a large real-world population from three different centres receiving a Roadsaver stent to treat carotid artery disease. Methods and results: One hundred and fifty (150) patients (age 74 +/- 8 yrs, 75% male, symptomatic 29%) treated with CAS using the Roadsaver carotid stent in three high-volume Italian centres were included in the study. Intraprocedural optical coherence tomography (OCT) evaluation was performed in 26 patients, with an off-line analysis by a dedicated core laboratory. All patients underwent duplex ultrasound and neurological evaluation at 24 hours and at 30 days. CAS was technically successful in all cases (stent diameter: 8.6 +/- 0.8 mm, stent length: 25.0 +/- 4.5 mm). No in-hospital or 30-day CEs were observed. OCT evaluation detected a low rate of plaque prolapse (two patients, 7.7%). Duplex ultrasound showed stent and external carotid artery patency in all cases both before discharge and at 30-day follow-up. Conclusions: The Roadsaver stent is a safe and promising technology for CAS, with a low percentage of plaque prolapse and good short-term clinical outcome. Larger studies with longer follow-up are necessary to confirm this favourable clinical outcome.

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