Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2012 Mar 12. [Epub ahead of print]

Conventional carotid endarterectomy versus stenting: comparison of restenosis rates in arteries with identical predisposing factors.

Author information

  • 1Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy - martelli@uniroma2.it.

Abstract

AIM:

The aim of the study was to investigate the possible role of individual predisposition in the pathogenesis of carotid restenosis. METHODS:Over 1700 patients have undergone carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in our institute over the past 15 years. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of those who also had contralateral carotid stenting (CAS) for primary atherosclerotic stenosis and recorded the rates of post-CEA and post-CAS restenosis ≥50%.

RESULTS:

In the 29 cases analyzed (21 men/8 women), CEA was performed with conventional technique and direct suturing in most cases. Mean ages at the time of CEA and CAS were 69.2±6.6 and 73±6.7 yrs, respectively, and risk profiles at the 2 time points were similar: hypertension (96.5%), dyslipidemia (55.2%), smoking (51.7%), diabetes (31%), coronary artery disease (48.3%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (37.9%), and chronic renal failure (13.8%). Antiplatelet therapy protocols were identical for the two procedures. During follow-up (mean: 67.25±51.6 months after CEA, 24.6±16.9 months after CAS), Duplex scans revealed restenosis in 12 patients (9 arteries treated with CEA, 6 managed with CAS). In three patients, restenosis was bilateral. Restenosis-free survival rates at five years were 85% after CEA and 66% after CAS (P=NS).

CONCLUSION:

In this selected group of patients, CEA and CAS were associated with a similar incidence of restenosis. Only 25% of the patients who developed restenosis did so after both procedures. These preliminary findings indicate that individual predisposition does not play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of restenosis. To confirm this conclusion, an analysis of a much larger, multicenter cohort is essential.

PMID:
22406964
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Minerva Medica
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk