4.3 Article

Carotid Stenting with Distal Protection in High-Surgical-Risk Patients: One-Year Results of the ASTI Trial

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY
卷 38, 期 2, 页码 295-303

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00270-014-1000-4

关键词

Carotid artery stenosis; Carotid stent; Carotid endarterectomy; High risk; Symptomatic; Asymptomatic

资金

  1. Boston Scientific Corporation, Natick, Massachusetts USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study evaluated the periprocedural and 1-year outcomes in high-surgical-risk patients with carotid artery stenosis treated with the Adapt Carotid Stent plus FilterWire EZ distal protection catheter (Boston Scientific Corporation, Natick, MA). The study enrolled 100 patients (32 symptomatic, 63 asymptomatic, 5 unknown) at high risk for carotid endarterectomy due to prespecified anatomical criteria and/or medical comorbidities. Thirty-day and 1-year follow-up included clinical evaluation, carotid duplex ultrasound, and independent neurologic and NIH stroke scale assessments. One-year endpoints included the composite rate of major adverse events (MAE), defined as death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) and the rates of late ipsilateral stroke (31-365 days), target lesion revascularization, and in-stent restenosis. Of the 100 enrolled patients, technical success was achieved in 90.9 % (90/99). The 30-day MAE rate (5.1 %) consisted of major stroke (2.0 %) and minor stroke (3.1 %); no deaths or MIs occurred. The 1-year MAE rate (12.2 %) consisted of death, MI, and stroke rates of 4.4, 3.3, and 8.9 %, respectively. Late ipsilateral stroke (31-365 days) rate was 1.1 %. Symptomatic patients had higher rates of death (11.1 vs. 1.7 %) and MI (7.4 vs. 1.7 %), but lower rates of major (7.4 vs. 10.0 %) and minor stroke (0.0 vs. 6.7 %), compared with asymptomatic patients. Results through 1 year postprocedure demonstrated that carotid artery stenting with Adapt Carotid Stent and FilterWire EZ is safe and effective in high-risk-surgical patients.

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