Carotid endarterectomies for relieving severe or mederate carotid stenosis
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Shanghai First People's Hospital, Shanghai 200080, China.Chinese medical journal (Impact Factor: 1.05). 07/2004; 117(6):956-8.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Severe bilateral carotid stenosis caused by atherosclerosis has not been unusual in the elderly. Such patients have high stroke risk. Many studies show that carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an alternative to treat unilateral carotid stenosis. However, the optimal procedural strategy of bilateral carotid stenosis remains unclear. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the safety of simultaneous bilateral carotid artery stenting (SBCAS) compared with unilateral carotid artery stenting (UCAS). In this single-center retrospective study, we analyzed 234 consecutive patients who underwent carotid stenting from January 2005 to December 2009. Thirty-nine patients (16.7%) of them underwent SBCAS, and the others (n = 195) underwent UCAS. Indication for CAS was defined as carotid artery diameter reduction > 60% (symptomatic) or > 80% (asymptomatic). Six-month and 30-day hemodynamic depression (HD), hyperperfusion syndrome (HPS), stroke, death and myocardial infarction (MI) after carotid stenting were assessed. SBCAS group had no more HD and HPS compared with UCAS group at 30 days (HD: 28.2% vs. 20.0%, P = 0.396; HPS: 2.6% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.262). Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference between SBCAS group and UCAS group in major stroke, death, MI and their combinations within 30 days (major stroke: 0 vs. 3.6%, P = 0.604; death: 2.6% vs. 1.5%, P = 0.520; MI: 2.6% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.306; and their combinations: 5.1% vs. 4.6%, P = 1.000) and 6 months (major stroke: 0 vs. 3.6%, P = 0.604; death: 5.1% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.262; MI: 5.1% vs.1.0%, P = 0.130 and their combinations: 7.7% vs. 5.1%, P = 0.459). The patients undergoing SBCAS had no more events than those undergoing UCAS in 30-day and 6-month follow-up. Our finding suggests that SBCAS appears to be as safe as UCAS.Chinese medical journal 03/2012; 125(6):1010-5. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2012.06.010 · 1.05 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.