Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
J Vasc Surg ; 76(2): 466-473.e1, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35381327

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a carotid stenting technique that utilizes reversal of cerebral arterial flow to confer cerebral protection. Although carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the standard for treatment of symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the search for the optimal minimally invasive option for the high-risk surgical patient continues. The goal of the current study is to evaluate the 1-year safety and efficacy of TCAR in a prospective clinical trial. METHODS: ROADSTER 2 is a prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, post-approval registry for patients undergoing TCAR. All patients were considered high risk for CEA and underwent independent neurological assessments preoperatively, postoperatively, and had long-term clinical follow-up. The primary end point was incidence of ipsilateral stroke after treatment with the ENROUTE Transcarotid Stent System. Secondary end points included individual/composite rates of stroke, death, and perioperative myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Between June 2016 and November 2018, 155 patients at 21 centers in the United States and one in the European Union were enrolled and represented a subset of the overall trial. Asymptomatic (n = 119; 77%) and symptomatic patients (n = 36; 23%) with high-risk anatomic (ie, high lesion, restenosis, radiation injury; 43%), physiologic (32%), or combined factors (25%) were enrolled. No patient suffered a perioperative myocardial infarction or stroke. Over the year, no patient had an ipsilateral stroke, but four patients died (2.6%), all from non-neurological causes. Additionally, a technical success rate of 98.7% with a low cranial nerve deficit rate of 1.3% was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with high risk factors, TCAR yields high technical success with a low stroke and death rate at 1 year. Further comparative studies with CEA are warranted.


Subject(s)
Carotid Stenosis , Endovascular Procedures , Myocardial Infarction , Stroke , Arteries , Carotid Stenosis/complications , Carotid Stenosis/diagnostic imaging , Carotid Stenosis/surgery , Endovascular Procedures/adverse effects , Humans , Myocardial Infarction/etiology , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Stents/adverse effects , Stroke/epidemiology , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , United States
2.
J Vasc Surg ; 48(2): 480-6, 2008 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18644494

ABSTRACT

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) appointed a committee of experts to formulate evidence-based clinical guidelines for the management of carotid stenosis. In formulating clinical practice recommendations, the committee used systematic reviews to summarize the best available evidence and the GRADE scheme to grade the strength of recommendations (GRADE 1 for strong recommendations; GRADE 2 for weak recommendations) and rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, and very low quality). In symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with low-grade carotid stenosis (<50% in symptomatic and <60% in asymptomatic patients), we recommend optimal medical therapy rather than revascularization (GRADE 1 recommendation, high quality evidence). In symptomatic patients with moderate to severe carotid stenosis (more than 50%), we recommend carotid endarterectomy plus optimal medical therapy (GRADE 1 recommendation, high quality evidence). In symptomatic patients with moderate to severe carotid stenosis (>/=50%) and high perioperative risk, we suggest carotid artery stenting as a potential alternative to carotid endarterectomy (GRADE 2 recommendation, low quality evidence). In asymptomatic patients with moderate to severe carotid stenosis (>/=60%), we recommend carotid endarterectomy plus medical management as long as the perioperative risk is low (GRADE 1 recommendation, high quality evidence). We recommend against carotid artery stenting for asymptomatic patients with moderate to severe (>/=60%) carotid artery stenosis (GRADE 1 recommendation, low quality evidence). A possible exception includes patients with >/=80% carotid artery stenosis and high anatomic risk for carotid endarterectomy.


Subject(s)
Atherosclerosis/complications , Atherosclerosis/therapy , Carotid Stenosis/etiology , Carotid Stenosis/therapy , Angiography/methods , Angioplasty/methods , Atherosclerosis/mortality , Carotid Stenosis/diagnosis , Carotid Stenosis/mortality , Endarterectomy, Carotid/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Patient Selection , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk Assessment , Severity of Illness Index , Societies, Medical , Stents , Survival Analysis , Thrombolytic Therapy/methods , Treatment Outcome , Ultrasonography, Doppler, Duplex , United States
3.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv ; 70(2): 316-23, 2007 Aug 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17630678

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether physicians with varying carotid stent experience would obtain safety and efficacy outcomes as good as those from the pivotal SAPPHIRE trial following participation in a comprehensive carotid stent training program. BACKGROUND: This study was performed as a condition of approval study for the PRECISE(R) Nitinol Stent and the ANGIOGUARD XP Emboli Capture Guidewire. METHODS: Patients at high surgical risk who were either symptomatic with >or=50% stenosis or asymptomatic with >or=80% stenosis of the common or internal carotid artery received carotid artery stenting with distal emboli protection using the PRECISE Nitinol Stent and the ANGIOGUARD XP Emboli Capture Guidewire. Physicians were qualified based on either prior experience in carotid stenting with the ANGIOGUARD XP Emboli Capture Guidewire or following participation in a formal training program. The primary endpoint of major adverse events (MAE) at 30 days (death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke) was tested for non-inferiority compared with an objective performance criterion (OPC) of 6.3% established from the stent cohort of the SAPPHIRE trial. RESULTS: The 30-day MAE rate was 5.0%, meeting the criteria for non-inferiority to the prespecified OPC (95% CI [3.9%, 6.2%] P<0.001). Asymptomatic patients (N=1,158, 78.2%) had similar outcomes to the overall results (MAE 4.7%). Outcomes were similar across levels of physician experience, carotid stent volume, geographic location, presence/absence of training program. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing a comprehensive training program, carotid artery stenting by operators with differing experience in a variety of practice settings yielded safety and efficacy outcomes similar to those reported in the SAPPHIRE trial.


Subject(s)
Angioplasty/education , Cardiovascular Diseases/etiology , Carotid Stenosis/surgery , Clinical Competence , Education, Medical , Embolism/prevention & control , Product Surveillance, Postmarketing , Stents , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Alloys , Angioplasty/adverse effects , Angioplasty/instrumentation , Cardiovascular Diseases/mortality , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Carotid Stenosis/mortality , Device Approval , Embolism/complications , Embolism/etiology , Embolism/mortality , Equipment Design , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Prosthesis Design , Registries , Severity of Illness Index , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...