ABSTRACT
Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been touted as a reasonable alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for high-risk surgical candidates. Several published CAS series, primarily from academic centers, show immediate results approaching those of CEA. However, very little is known about long-term results with CAS, particularly in the community hospital setting. Therefore, we retrospectively reviewed our CAS experience. From February 1999 to July 2003, 44 consecutive patients underwent placement of 46 stents. The mean patient age was 73 years, and 57 per cent were men. Most patients were asymptomatic (74%). High-risk categories included prior CEA (71%), other anatomic risks (13%), and/or significant medical comorbidities (16%). Technical success was achieved in all 46 cases. At 30 days, there were no deaths and one stroke, giving a combined stroke/mortality of 2 per cent. Clinical follow-up was obtained on all 44 patients at a mean follow-up of 42 months. Duplex scans performed on 44 stents (96%), at a mean follow-up of 40 months, demonstrated four 60 per cent to 79 per cent recurrent stenoses. CAS in a community hospital can have a 30-day stroke/mortality equivalent to CEA. The procedure is durable, with no critical (80%-99%) carotid restenoses and no stroke or transient ischemic attacks referable to a stented carotid artery in long-term follow-up.
Subject(s)
Angioplasty/methods , Carotid Stenosis/surgery , Stents , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Endarterectomy, Carotid , Feasibility Studies , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hospitals, Community , Humans , Ischemic Attack, Transient/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Myocardial Infarction/etiology , Postoperative Complications , Recurrence , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Stroke/etiology , Treatment Outcome , Ultrasonography, Doppler, DuplexABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare the performance and safety of a fully subcutaneous vascular access device, the LifeSite hemodialysis access system, versus a tunneled hemodialysis catheter, the Tesio-Cath, at 1 year after implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight patients who required hemodialysis received implantation of the LifeSite device or a Tesio-Cath device as a part of this multicenter study. Thirty-four patients were treated in each group. The endpoints observed included blood flow rates and associated venous pressures, overall and device-related adverse events, the need for thrombolytic infusions, device-related infections (DRIs) and associated hospitalizations, and technical device survival. RESULTS: During the 12-month observation period, significantly higher venous pressures were required in patients with the Tesio-Cath to achieve blood flow rates comparable with those achieved with the LifeSite device. Patients in the LifeSite group experienced a significantly lower rate of non-device-related adverse events (P < .001), device-related adverse events (P < .016), need for thrombolytic infusions (P < .002), and DRIs (P < .013) compared with patients in the Tesio-Cath group. There was a trend toward a lower number of hospital days per month for DRIs in the LifeSite group, with the rate for the Tesio-Cath group being twice that in the LifeSite group. The use of the LifeSite device was also associated with a significantly higher probability of device survival for 12 months after censoring for planned removals (P < .031). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study demonstrate superior device performance and technical device survival, reduced complications, and the need for fewer interventions with the LifeSite hemodialysis access system compared with a standard hemodialysis catheter during a 1-year time period after implantation.
