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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |