All

What are you looking for?

All
Projects
Results
Organizations

Quick search

  • Projects supported by TA ČR
  • Excellent projects
  • Projects with the highest public support
  • Current projects

Smart search

  • That is how I find a specific +word
  • That is how I leave the -word out of the results
  • “That is how I can find the whole phrase”

Carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in the light of ICSS and CREST studies

The result's identifiers

  • Result code in IS VaVaI

    <a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11110%2F18%3A10381496" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11110/18:10381496 - isvavai.cz</a>

  • Result on the web

    <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73739-3_14" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73739-3_14</a>

  • DOI - Digital Object Identifier

    <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73739-3_14" target="_blank" >10.1007/978-3-319-73739-3_14</a>

Alternative languages

  • Result language

    angličtina

  • Original language name

    Carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in the light of ICSS and CREST studies

  • Original language description

    Objective: We analyzed the results of internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis treatment at our institution according to the treatment modality-carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs. carotid artery stenting (CAS). Methods: During 2003-2015, a total of 1894 procedures were performed for ICA stenosis. CEA was done in 1064 cases and CAS in 830 cases. The primary outcome was disabling stroke (mRS &gt; 2) or myocardial infarction within 30 days of treatment. Secondary outcomes were transitory ischemic attacks (TIAs), minor strokes (stroke without impaired activities of daily living), and any other significant complications. Results: Major mortality and morbidity were divided according to their treatment groups; this reached 0.9% in the CEA and 2.5% in the CAS group (p = 0.007). Minor stroke was recorded at 1.5% and 2.7% in the CEA and CAS groups (p = 0.077), TIAs in 1.0% (CEA) and 4.0% (CAS) (p &lt; 0.001), and any complication in 12.4% (CEA) and 13.0% (CAS) (p = 0.694). Conclusions: CEA is a safe procedure in patients who meet the correct treatment indications. In all subgroup analyses CEA proved to be equal to or better than CAS. This study supports the idea of CEA being the preferred treatment and CAS being reserved for selected cases only.

  • Czech name

  • Czech description

Classification

  • Type

    D - Article in proceedings

  • CEP classification

  • OECD FORD branch

    30103 - Neurosciences (including psychophysiology)

Result continuities

  • Project

  • Continuities

    V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Others

  • Publication year

    2018

  • Confidentiality

    S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Data specific for result type

  • Article name in the collection

    Trends in the Management of Cerebrovascular Diseases

  • ISBN

    978-3-319-73738-6

  • ISSN

    0065-1419

  • e-ISSN

    neuvedeno

  • Number of pages

    5

  • Pages from-to

    95-99

  • Publisher name

    Springer-Verlag Wien

  • Place of publication

    Wien

  • Event location

    Zurich, Switzerland

  • Event date

    Jun 22, 2016

  • Type of event by nationality

    WRD - Celosvětová akce

  • UT code for WoS article

    000455755700014