Cargando…

Urgent Carotid Surgery: Is It Still out of Debate?

Patients with symptomatic tight carotid stenosis have an increased short-time risk of stroke and an increased long-term risk of ischaemic vascular events compared with the general population. The aim of this study is to assess the safety, efficacy, and limitations of urgent CEA or CAS, in patients w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Battocchio, C., Fantozzi, C., Rizzo, L., Persiani, F., Raffa, S., Taurino, M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3317123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22506117
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/536392
_version_ 1782228514158673920
author Battocchio, C.
Fantozzi, C.
Rizzo, L.
Persiani, F.
Raffa, S.
Taurino, M.
author_facet Battocchio, C.
Fantozzi, C.
Rizzo, L.
Persiani, F.
Raffa, S.
Taurino, M.
author_sort Battocchio, C.
collection PubMed
description Patients with symptomatic tight carotid stenosis have an increased short-time risk of stroke and an increased long-term risk of ischaemic vascular events compared with the general population. The aim of this study is to assess the safety, efficacy, and limitations of urgent CEA or CAS, in patients with carotid stenosis greater than 70% and clinically characterized by recurrent TIA or brain damage following a stroke (<2.5 cm). This study involved 28 patients divided into two groups. Group A consisted of sixteen patients who had undergone CEA, and group B consisted of twelve patients who had undergone CAS. Primary endpoints were mortality, neurological morbidity (by NIHSS) and postoperative hemorrhagic cerebral conversion, at 30 days. Ten patients (62.5%) of group A experienced an improvement in their initial neurological deficit while in 4 cases (26%) the deficit remained stable. Two cases of neurologic mortality are presented. At 1 month, 9 patients (75%) of group B experienced an improvement in their initial neurological deficit while 3 patients (25%) had a neurological impairment. Urgent or deferred surgical or endovascular treatment have a satisfactory outcome considering the profile in very high-risk patient population. Otherwise in selected patients CEA seems to be preferred to CAS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3317123
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33171232012-04-13 Urgent Carotid Surgery: Is It Still out of Debate? Battocchio, C. Fantozzi, C. Rizzo, L. Persiani, F. Raffa, S. Taurino, M. Int J Vasc Med Clinical Study Patients with symptomatic tight carotid stenosis have an increased short-time risk of stroke and an increased long-term risk of ischaemic vascular events compared with the general population. The aim of this study is to assess the safety, efficacy, and limitations of urgent CEA or CAS, in patients with carotid stenosis greater than 70% and clinically characterized by recurrent TIA or brain damage following a stroke (<2.5 cm). This study involved 28 patients divided into two groups. Group A consisted of sixteen patients who had undergone CEA, and group B consisted of twelve patients who had undergone CAS. Primary endpoints were mortality, neurological morbidity (by NIHSS) and postoperative hemorrhagic cerebral conversion, at 30 days. Ten patients (62.5%) of group A experienced an improvement in their initial neurological deficit while in 4 cases (26%) the deficit remained stable. Two cases of neurologic mortality are presented. At 1 month, 9 patients (75%) of group B experienced an improvement in their initial neurological deficit while 3 patients (25%) had a neurological impairment. Urgent or deferred surgical or endovascular treatment have a satisfactory outcome considering the profile in very high-risk patient population. Otherwise in selected patients CEA seems to be preferred to CAS. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2012 2012-03-19 /pmc/articles/PMC3317123/ /pubmed/22506117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/536392 Text en Copyright © 2012 C. Battocchio et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Battocchio, C.
Fantozzi, C.
Rizzo, L.
Persiani, F.
Raffa, S.
Taurino, M.
Urgent Carotid Surgery: Is It Still out of Debate?
title Urgent Carotid Surgery: Is It Still out of Debate?
title_full Urgent Carotid Surgery: Is It Still out of Debate?
title_fullStr Urgent Carotid Surgery: Is It Still out of Debate?
title_full_unstemmed Urgent Carotid Surgery: Is It Still out of Debate?
title_short Urgent Carotid Surgery: Is It Still out of Debate?
title_sort urgent carotid surgery: is it still out of debate?
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3317123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22506117
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/536392
work_keys_str_mv AT battocchioc urgentcarotidsurgeryisitstilloutofdebate
AT fantozzic urgentcarotidsurgeryisitstilloutofdebate
AT rizzol urgentcarotidsurgeryisitstilloutofdebate
AT persianif urgentcarotidsurgeryisitstilloutofdebate
AT raffas urgentcarotidsurgeryisitstilloutofdebate
AT taurinom urgentcarotidsurgeryisitstilloutofdebate