Outcomes of Carotid Stenting in Patients With Previous Neck Radiation
Our aim was to report outcomes of percutaneous stenting of carotid stenosis in patients with previous neck radiation. Background
Post-irradiation carotid disease is often extensive and involves atypical areas. Data regarding outcomes of stenting of these lesions are scarce. Methods
We retrospectively reviewed medical records at our institution from January 1998 through May 2010 to determine baseline characteristics, procedural details, and follow-up data of patients who underwent stenting of radiation-associated carotid stenosis. ResultsOur study included 70 patients who underwent a total of 83 procedures. Of these, 47 patients were male (67%), mean age was 66.3 10.6 years. Mean follow-up was 47.5 months (range from 1 to 155 months). All patients had a history of radiotherapy to the neck area, with laryngeal cancer being the most common reason. Furthermore, 41 patients (58.5%) had previous neck surgery due to malignancies. An embolic protection device was used in 61 (73%) procedures. During the follow-up, 5 (6%) ipsilateral events among a total of 10 (12.0%) ischemic events were observed. There was 1 intraprocedural stroke (1.2%), but there were no other ischemic event at 30 days and 1-year post procedure. Mortality was 4.8% during the first 30 days, 8.6% during the first year and 60% at the end of the study. Restenosis was seen in 2 (2.4%) patients at 1 year and in total nine patients (10.8 %) with long-term follow-up. Conclusions
Carotid stenting is a safe and durable treatment option for patients with severe carotid stenosis and neck radiation. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Figures in this publication
Available from: sciencedirect.com
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: No consensus exists for duplex ultrasound criteria in the diagnosis of significant common carotid artery (CCA) stenosis. In general, peak systolic velocity (PSV) >150 cm/s with poststenotic turbulence indicates a stenosis >50%. The purpose of our study is to correlate CCA duplex velocities with angiographic findings of significant stenosis >60%.
We reviewed the carotid duplex records from 2008 to 2011 looking for patients with isolated CCA stenosis and no ipsilateral internal or contralateral carotid artery disease who received either a carotid angiogram or a computed tomography scan. We identified 25 patients who had significant CCA disease >60%. We also selected 74 controls without known CCA stenosis. We performed receiver operating characteristics analysis to correlate PSV and end-diastolic velocity (EDV) with angiographic stenosis >60%. The degree of stenosis was determined by measuring the luminal stenosis in comparison to the proximal normal CCA diameter.
Most patients had a carotid angiogram (21/25), four only had a computed tomography angiography and four had both. Eighteen patients had history of neck radiation. The CCA PSV ≥250 cm/s had a sensitivity of 98.7% (81.5%-100%) and a specificity of 95.7% (92.0%-99.9%), CCA PSV ≥300 cm/s had a sensitivity of 90.9% (69.4%-98.4%) and a specificity of 98.7% (92.0%-99.9%). The CCA EDV ≥40 cm/s had a sensitivity of 95.5% (95% confidence interval of 75.1-99.8%) and specificity of 98.7% (92.0%-99.9%), EDV ≥60 cm/s had a sensitivity of 100% (75.1%-99.8%) and specificity of 87% (94.1-100%), and EDV ≥70 cm/s had a sensitivity of 86.4% (64.0%-96.4%) and specificity of 100% (94.1%-100%). The presence of both PSV <250 cm/s and EDV <60 cm/s had a 98.7% negative predictive value, and the presence of both PSV ≥250 cm/s and EDV ≥60 cm/s had 100% positive predictive value.
Establishing CCA duplex criteria to screen patients with significant stenosis is crucial to identify those who will need further imaging modality or treatment. In our laboratory, CCA PSV ≥250 cm/s and EDV ≥60 cm/s are thresholds that can be used to identify significant (>60%) CCA stenosis with a high degree of accuracy.
Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter 09/2013; 57(5). DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2013.08.030 · 3.02 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
Carotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid stenosis is favored over carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with a hostile neck from prior CEA or cervical irradiation (XRT). However, the restenosis rate after CAS in patients with hostile necks is variable in the literature. The objective of this study was to quantify differences in the in-stent restenosis (ISR)/occlusion and reintervention rates after CAS in patients with and without a hostile neck. Here we hypothesize that patients with hostile necks have an increased ISR, and that this increase may add morbidity to these patients.
Materials and methods:
All patients undergoing CAS from 2007 to 2013 for carotid artery stenosis with follow-up imaging at our institution were queried from our carotid database (n = 236). Patients with hostile necks, including both CAS after prior CEA (n = 65) and prior XRT (n = 37), were compared with patients who underwent CAS for other reasons including both anatomical (n = 46) and medical comorbidities (n = 88). The primary end points were ISR, repeat intervention, and stent occlusion. Secondary end points of the study were stroke/myocardial infarction (MI)/death at 30 days, perioperative cardiovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, MI, groin access complications, hyperperfusion syndrome, and periprocedural hypotension or bradycardia.
Despite the hostile neck cohort being younger and having lower incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, and renal insufficiency, they had a greater incidence of ISR (11% vs. 4%; P = .03) and required more reinterventions (8% vs. 2%; P = .04). Stent occlusion and periprocedural morbidity/mortality were not different between groups.
Patients with hostile necks have increased risk of restenosis and need for reinterventions after CAS compared with patients without a hostile neck. However, they do not appear to have higher rates of stent occlusion or per-procedural events.
Annals of Vascular Surgery 06/2014; 29(1). DOI:10.1016/j.avsg.2014.06.002 · 1.17 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.