Open AccessPeri-procedural outcome of series of 104 carotid artery stenting procedures
Author(s) -
Mohamad Ahmad,
Salah Atta,
Carmelo Sgroi,
Antonino Nicosia,
Yehia Taha Kishk,
Hamdy Soliman,
Corrado Tamburino
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
the egyptian heart journal /the egyptian heart journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.212
H-Index - 9
eISSN - 2090-911X
pISSN - 1110-2608
DOI - 10.1016/j.ehj.2013.09.007
Subject(s) - medicine , amaurosis fugax , asymptomatic , stenosis , carotid endarterectomy , internal carotid artery , stroke (engine) , surgery , adverse effect , carotid stenting , perioperative , stent , cardiology , mechanical engineering , engineering
Background: Management of carotid artery stenosis is considered an important strategy for stroke prevention. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been introduced as an acceptable alternative to surgical carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the treatment of internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis.Objective: Assessment of peri-procedural outcome of CAS in 104 consecutive procedures.Methods: The study included 104 consecutive CAS procedures. Included patients had ⩾50% ICA stenosis in the symptomatic group and ⩾70% stenosis in the asymptomatic group. Procedures were performed in cath. labs of Catania and Ragusa hospitals-Italy.Results: Included procedures were done in 100 consecutive eligible patients with ICA stenosis. Four patients had undergone CAS procedures in both sides in 2 separate sessions. Patients were 71 males and 29 females, mean age was 71.9 ± 7.85 years, and 21 patients were ⩾80 years old (octogenarians). The majority of patients had asymptomatic ICA stenosis (76%) and was diagnosed accidentally during medical checkup. Twenty-four patients had symptomatic ICA stenosis (ipsilateral TIA or stroke). Technical success was obtained in 103 procedures (99%). Embolic protection devices were used in all succeeded cases. Combined cerebrovascular events had occurred in 5 patients with estimated rate = 4.8%. No cases of amaurosis fugax, MI or death had occurred. Adverse events was 4.1% in the symptomatic group and 1.3% in the asymptomatic group with no significant statistical difference (P = 0.064).Conclusion: CAS with EPDs seems a feasible and safe procedure and could be performed with an acceptable rate of periprocedural adverse events