English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) is considered the gold standard for treatment of symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid disease. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a less invasive approach and therefore could be considered a viable alternative to CEA, especially in high-risk patients or those with relative contraindications to CEA (i.e. actinic stenosis, post-CEA restenosis, previous neck or tracheostomy surgery, contralateral laryngeal nerve paralysis, etc.). Methods The aim of this study is to evaluate the short- and medium-term outcomes of CAS performed with a single type of closed-cell stent design and distal filter protection by comparing the procedure with CEA based upon 3 endpoints: overall survival rate, stroke free survival rate and restenosis free survival rate. The same endpoints were also evaluated in 2 different age groups, more and less than 70 years, to show possible age-based differences on outcomes. Among 105 patients (77 males, 28 females), 74 were submitted to CEA and 31 were subject to CAS. In all cases the same self-expanding stent with closed-cell design (XACT Carotid Stent, Abbott Vascular) and the same distal embolic protection device (Emboshield NAV, Abbott Vascular) were employed. Results At 12 months, no statistically significant difference was observed in overall survival rates (CEA 93.2% vs CAS 93.5%, p=0.967) and restenosis free survival rates (CEA 94.5% vs CAS 96.8%, p=0.662). An increased stroke free survival rate was observed in the CEA group when compared to the CAS group (CEA 100.0% vs CAS 93.5%, p=0.028). The age-based endpoints didn’t show any significant difference. Conclusion These results suggest that CEA still remains the gold standard of treatment for carotid stenosis given its greater efficacy in the prevention of stroke CAS. However, CAS could be considered as an alternative treatment to CEA to be used in select cases only.

Standard Carotid Endarterectomy versus Carotid Artery Stenting with Closed-Cell Stent Design and Distal Embolic Protection: does the age matter?