Cargando…
Severe, recurrent in-stent carotid restenosis: endovascular approach, risk factors. Results from a prospective academic registry of 2637 consecutive carotid artery stenting procedures (TARGET-CAS)
INTRODUCTION: Optimal management of severe carotid in-stent restenosis remains unknown. Prevalence and risk factors of first and recurrent carotid in-stent restenosis in the multi-stent approach have not been established yet. AIM: To evaluate the safety of different methods of endovascular treatment...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Termedia Publishing House
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6956450/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31933663 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aic.2019.90221 |
_version_ | 1783487153567694848 |
---|---|
author | Tekieli, Łukasz Musiałek, Piotr Kabłak-Ziembicka, Anna Trystuła, Mariusz Przewłocki, Tadeusz Legutko, Jacek Dzierwa, Karolina Maciejewski, Damian Michalski, Michał Pieniążek, Piotr |
author_facet | Tekieli, Łukasz Musiałek, Piotr Kabłak-Ziembicka, Anna Trystuła, Mariusz Przewłocki, Tadeusz Legutko, Jacek Dzierwa, Karolina Maciejewski, Damian Michalski, Michał Pieniążek, Piotr |
author_sort | Tekieli, Łukasz |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Optimal management of severe carotid in-stent restenosis remains unknown. Prevalence and risk factors of first and recurrent carotid in-stent restenosis in the multi-stent approach have not been established yet. AIM: To evaluate the safety of different methods of endovascular treatment of carotid in-stent restenosis/recurrent restenosis and to establish its rate and risk factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between January 2001 and June 2016, 2637 neuroprotected carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedures were performed in 2443 patients (men: 67.0%; mean age: 67.9 ±8.8 years, symptomatic: 45.5%). Doppler ultrasound (DUS) evaluation was performed at discharge, after 3–6 months, 12 months, and then annually. Peak systolic velocity of 2–3 and > 3.0 m/s as well as end diastolic velocity of 0.5–0.9 and > 0.9 m/s were DUS criteria for 50–69% and ≥ 70% carotid in-stent restenosis (ISR) respectively. For angiographically confirmed ≥ 70% stenosis balloon re-angioplasty was first line treatment. RESULTS: Out of 95 DUS detected > 50% ISR (95/2637; 3.6%), 53 were confirmed in angiography as ≥ 70% (53/2637; 2.0%, one total occlusion). All patients were treated with bare balloon (n = 19), drug-eluting balloon (n = 27) or stent-supported (n = 6) angioplasty. One procedure was complicated with stroke (1.9%). Angiographic diameter stenosis (DS) was reduced from 83 ±8.3% to 13 ±7.6% (p < 0.001). There were 13 cases of ≥ 70% recurrent ISR. Bilateral and high-grade stenosis were independent risk factors of restenosis. Initial Carotid Wallstent implantation was a risk factor of first and recurrent in-stent restenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment of carotid in-stent restenosis is safe. Bilateral and high-grade carotid artery stenosis may increase the risk of restenosis. Initial Carotid Wallstent implantation may increase the risk of first and recurrent restenosis. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6956450 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Termedia Publishing House |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-69564502020-01-13 Severe, recurrent in-stent carotid restenosis: endovascular approach, risk factors. Results from a prospective academic registry of 2637 consecutive carotid artery stenting procedures (TARGET-CAS) Tekieli, Łukasz Musiałek, Piotr Kabłak-Ziembicka, Anna Trystuła, Mariusz Przewłocki, Tadeusz Legutko, Jacek Dzierwa, Karolina Maciejewski, Damian Michalski, Michał Pieniążek, Piotr Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej Original Paper INTRODUCTION: Optimal management of severe carotid in-stent restenosis remains unknown. Prevalence and risk factors of first and recurrent carotid in-stent restenosis in the multi-stent approach have not been established yet. AIM: To evaluate the safety of different methods of endovascular treatment of carotid in-stent restenosis/recurrent restenosis and to establish its rate and risk factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between January 2001 and June 2016, 2637 neuroprotected carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedures were performed in 2443 patients (men: 67.0%; mean age: 67.9 ±8.8 years, symptomatic: 45.5%). Doppler ultrasound (DUS) evaluation was performed at discharge, after 3–6 months, 12 months, and then annually. Peak systolic velocity of 2–3 and > 3.0 m/s as well as end diastolic velocity of 0.5–0.9 and > 0.9 m/s were DUS criteria for 50–69% and ≥ 70% carotid in-stent restenosis (ISR) respectively. For angiographically confirmed ≥ 70% stenosis balloon re-angioplasty was first line treatment. RESULTS: Out of 95 DUS detected > 50% ISR (95/2637; 3.6%), 53 were confirmed in angiography as ≥ 70% (53/2637; 2.0%, one total occlusion). All patients were treated with bare balloon (n = 19), drug-eluting balloon (n = 27) or stent-supported (n = 6) angioplasty. One procedure was complicated with stroke (1.9%). Angiographic diameter stenosis (DS) was reduced from 83 ±8.3% to 13 ±7.6% (p < 0.001). There were 13 cases of ≥ 70% recurrent ISR. Bilateral and high-grade stenosis were independent risk factors of restenosis. Initial Carotid Wallstent implantation was a risk factor of first and recurrent in-stent restenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment of carotid in-stent restenosis is safe. Bilateral and high-grade carotid artery stenosis may increase the risk of restenosis. Initial Carotid Wallstent implantation may increase the risk of first and recurrent restenosis. Termedia Publishing House 2019-12-08 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6956450/ /pubmed/31933663 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aic.2019.90221 Text en Copyright: © 2019 Termedia Sp. z o. o. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license. |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Tekieli, Łukasz Musiałek, Piotr Kabłak-Ziembicka, Anna Trystuła, Mariusz Przewłocki, Tadeusz Legutko, Jacek Dzierwa, Karolina Maciejewski, Damian Michalski, Michał Pieniążek, Piotr Severe, recurrent in-stent carotid restenosis: endovascular approach, risk factors. Results from a prospective academic registry of 2637 consecutive carotid artery stenting procedures (TARGET-CAS) |
title | Severe, recurrent in-stent carotid restenosis: endovascular approach, risk factors. Results from a prospective academic registry of 2637 consecutive carotid artery stenting procedures (TARGET-CAS) |
title_full | Severe, recurrent in-stent carotid restenosis: endovascular approach, risk factors. Results from a prospective academic registry of 2637 consecutive carotid artery stenting procedures (TARGET-CAS) |
title_fullStr | Severe, recurrent in-stent carotid restenosis: endovascular approach, risk factors. Results from a prospective academic registry of 2637 consecutive carotid artery stenting procedures (TARGET-CAS) |
title_full_unstemmed | Severe, recurrent in-stent carotid restenosis: endovascular approach, risk factors. Results from a prospective academic registry of 2637 consecutive carotid artery stenting procedures (TARGET-CAS) |
title_short | Severe, recurrent in-stent carotid restenosis: endovascular approach, risk factors. Results from a prospective academic registry of 2637 consecutive carotid artery stenting procedures (TARGET-CAS) |
title_sort | severe, recurrent in-stent carotid restenosis: endovascular approach, risk factors. results from a prospective academic registry of 2637 consecutive carotid artery stenting procedures (target-cas) |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6956450/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31933663 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aic.2019.90221 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tekieliłukasz severerecurrentinstentcarotidrestenosisendovascularapproachriskfactorsresultsfromaprospectiveacademicregistryof2637consecutivecarotidarterystentingprocedurestargetcas AT musiałekpiotr severerecurrentinstentcarotidrestenosisendovascularapproachriskfactorsresultsfromaprospectiveacademicregistryof2637consecutivecarotidarterystentingprocedurestargetcas AT kabłakziembickaanna severerecurrentinstentcarotidrestenosisendovascularapproachriskfactorsresultsfromaprospectiveacademicregistryof2637consecutivecarotidarterystentingprocedurestargetcas AT trystułamariusz severerecurrentinstentcarotidrestenosisendovascularapproachriskfactorsresultsfromaprospectiveacademicregistryof2637consecutivecarotidarterystentingprocedurestargetcas AT przewłockitadeusz severerecurrentinstentcarotidrestenosisendovascularapproachriskfactorsresultsfromaprospectiveacademicregistryof2637consecutivecarotidarterystentingprocedurestargetcas AT legutkojacek severerecurrentinstentcarotidrestenosisendovascularapproachriskfactorsresultsfromaprospectiveacademicregistryof2637consecutivecarotidarterystentingprocedurestargetcas AT dzierwakarolina severerecurrentinstentcarotidrestenosisendovascularapproachriskfactorsresultsfromaprospectiveacademicregistryof2637consecutivecarotidarterystentingprocedurestargetcas AT maciejewskidamian severerecurrentinstentcarotidrestenosisendovascularapproachriskfactorsresultsfromaprospectiveacademicregistryof2637consecutivecarotidarterystentingprocedurestargetcas AT michalskimichał severerecurrentinstentcarotidrestenosisendovascularapproachriskfactorsresultsfromaprospectiveacademicregistryof2637consecutivecarotidarterystentingprocedurestargetcas AT pieniazekpiotr severerecurrentinstentcarotidrestenosisendovascularapproachriskfactorsresultsfromaprospectiveacademicregistryof2637consecutivecarotidarterystentingprocedurestargetcas |