Cargando…

The management of carotid restenosis: a comprehensive review

Carotid artery stenosis (CS) is a major medical problem affecting approximately 10% of the general population 80 years or older and causes stroke in approximately 10% of all ischemic events. In patients with symptomatic, moderate-to-severe CS, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stilo, Francesco, Montelione, Nunzio, Calandrelli, Rosalinda, Distefano, Marisa, Spinelli, Francesco, Di Lazzaro, Vincenzo, Pilato, Fabio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7607074/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33178804
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-963
_version_ 1783604569854443520
author Stilo, Francesco
Montelione, Nunzio
Calandrelli, Rosalinda
Distefano, Marisa
Spinelli, Francesco
Di Lazzaro, Vincenzo
Pilato, Fabio
author_facet Stilo, Francesco
Montelione, Nunzio
Calandrelli, Rosalinda
Distefano, Marisa
Spinelli, Francesco
Di Lazzaro, Vincenzo
Pilato, Fabio
author_sort Stilo, Francesco
collection PubMed
description Carotid artery stenosis (CS) is a major medical problem affecting approximately 10% of the general population 80 years or older and causes stroke in approximately 10% of all ischemic events. In patients with symptomatic, moderate-to-severe CS, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), has been used to lower the risk of stroke. In primary CS, CEA was found to be superior to best medical therapy (BMT) according to 3 large randomized controlled trials (RCT). Following CEA and CAS, restenosis remains an unsolved problem involving a large number of patients as the current treatment recommendations are not as clear as those for primary stenosis. Several studies have evaluated the risk of restenosis, reporting an incidence ranging from 5% to 22% after CEA and an in-stent restenosis (ISR) rate ranging from 2.7% to 33%. Treatment and optimal management of this disease process, however, is a matter of ongoing debate, and, given the dearth of level 1evidence for the management of these conditions, the relevant guidelines lack clarity. Moreover, the incidence rates of stroke and complications in patients with carotid stenosis are derived from studies that did not use contemporary techniques and materials. Rapidly changing guidelines, updated techniques, and materials, and modern medical treatments make actual incidence rates barely comparable to previous ones. For these reasons, RCTs are critical for determining whether these patients should be treated with more aggressive treatments additional to BMT and identifying those patients indicated for surgical or endovascular treatments. This review summarizes the current evidence and controversies concerning the risks, causes, current treatment options, and prognoses in patients with restenosis after CEA or CAS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7607074
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76070742020-11-10 The management of carotid restenosis: a comprehensive review Stilo, Francesco Montelione, Nunzio Calandrelli, Rosalinda Distefano, Marisa Spinelli, Francesco Di Lazzaro, Vincenzo Pilato, Fabio Ann Transl Med Review Article on Carotid Artery Stenosis and Stroke: Prevention and Treatment Part I Carotid artery stenosis (CS) is a major medical problem affecting approximately 10% of the general population 80 years or older and causes stroke in approximately 10% of all ischemic events. In patients with symptomatic, moderate-to-severe CS, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), has been used to lower the risk of stroke. In primary CS, CEA was found to be superior to best medical therapy (BMT) according to 3 large randomized controlled trials (RCT). Following CEA and CAS, restenosis remains an unsolved problem involving a large number of patients as the current treatment recommendations are not as clear as those for primary stenosis. Several studies have evaluated the risk of restenosis, reporting an incidence ranging from 5% to 22% after CEA and an in-stent restenosis (ISR) rate ranging from 2.7% to 33%. Treatment and optimal management of this disease process, however, is a matter of ongoing debate, and, given the dearth of level 1evidence for the management of these conditions, the relevant guidelines lack clarity. Moreover, the incidence rates of stroke and complications in patients with carotid stenosis are derived from studies that did not use contemporary techniques and materials. Rapidly changing guidelines, updated techniques, and materials, and modern medical treatments make actual incidence rates barely comparable to previous ones. For these reasons, RCTs are critical for determining whether these patients should be treated with more aggressive treatments additional to BMT and identifying those patients indicated for surgical or endovascular treatments. This review summarizes the current evidence and controversies concerning the risks, causes, current treatment options, and prognoses in patients with restenosis after CEA or CAS. AME Publishing Company 2020-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7607074/ /pubmed/33178804 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-963 Text en 2020 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article on Carotid Artery Stenosis and Stroke: Prevention and Treatment Part I
Stilo, Francesco
Montelione, Nunzio
Calandrelli, Rosalinda
Distefano, Marisa
Spinelli, Francesco
Di Lazzaro, Vincenzo
Pilato, Fabio
The management of carotid restenosis: a comprehensive review
title The management of carotid restenosis: a comprehensive review
title_full The management of carotid restenosis: a comprehensive review
title_fullStr The management of carotid restenosis: a comprehensive review
title_full_unstemmed The management of carotid restenosis: a comprehensive review
title_short The management of carotid restenosis: a comprehensive review
title_sort management of carotid restenosis: a comprehensive review
topic Review Article on Carotid Artery Stenosis and Stroke: Prevention and Treatment Part I
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7607074/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33178804
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-963
work_keys_str_mv AT stilofrancesco themanagementofcarotidrestenosisacomprehensivereview
AT montelionenunzio themanagementofcarotidrestenosisacomprehensivereview
AT calandrellirosalinda themanagementofcarotidrestenosisacomprehensivereview
AT distefanomarisa themanagementofcarotidrestenosisacomprehensivereview
AT spinellifrancesco themanagementofcarotidrestenosisacomprehensivereview
AT dilazzarovincenzo themanagementofcarotidrestenosisacomprehensivereview
AT pilatofabio themanagementofcarotidrestenosisacomprehensivereview
AT stilofrancesco managementofcarotidrestenosisacomprehensivereview
AT montelionenunzio managementofcarotidrestenosisacomprehensivereview
AT calandrellirosalinda managementofcarotidrestenosisacomprehensivereview
AT distefanomarisa managementofcarotidrestenosisacomprehensivereview
AT spinellifrancesco managementofcarotidrestenosisacomprehensivereview
AT dilazzarovincenzo managementofcarotidrestenosisacomprehensivereview
AT pilatofabio managementofcarotidrestenosisacomprehensivereview