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

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61383082%3A_____%2F18%3A00000416" target="_blank" >RIV/61383082:_____/18:00000416 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30171320" target="_blank" >https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30171320</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>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

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

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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 > 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 < 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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

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

Popis výsledku anglicky

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 > 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 < 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.

Druh

J_SC - Článek v periodiku v databázi SCOPUS

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30103 - Neurosciences (including psychophysiology)

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2018

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

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

Název periodika

Acta Neurochirurgica, Supplementum

ISSN

00651419

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

129

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2018

Stát vydavatele periodika

AT - Rakouská republika

Počet stran výsledku

5

Strana od-do

95-99

Kód UT WoS článku

000455755700014

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85052837902