Alert for increased long-term follow-up after carotid artery stenting: results of a prospective, randomized, single-center trial of carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been shown to be effective in stroke prevention for patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Although several prospective randomized trials indicate that carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an alternative but not superior treatment modality, there is still a significant lack of long-term data comparing CAS with CEA. This study presents long-term results of a prospective, randomized, single-center trial. METHODS: Between August 1999 and April 2002, 87 patients with a symptomatic high-grade internal carotid artery stenosis (>70%) were randomized to CAS or CEA. After a median observation time of 66 +/- 14.2 months (CAS) and 64 +/- 12.1 months (CEA), 42 patients in each group were re-evaluated retrospectively by clinical examination and documentation of neurologic events. Duplex ultrasound imaging was performed in 61 patients (32 CAS, 29 CEA), and patients with restenosis >70% were re-evaluated by angiography. RESULTS: During the observation period, 23 patients (25.2%) died (10 CAS, 13 CEA), and three were lost to follow up. The incidence of strokes was higher after CAS, with four strokes in 42 CAS patients vs none in 42 CEA patients. One transient ischemic attack occurred in each group. A significantly higher rate of restenosis >70% (6 of 32 vs 0 of 29) occurred after CAS compared with CEA. Five of 32 CAS patients (15.6%) presented with high-grade (>70%) restenosis as an indication for secondary intervention or surgical stent removal, and three presented with neurologic symptoms. No CEA patients required reintervention (P < .05 vs CAS). A medium-grade (<70%) restenosis was detected in eight of 32 CAS patients (25%) and in one of 29 CEA patients (3.4%). In five of 32 CAS (15.6%) and three of 29 CEA patients (10.3%), a high-grade stenosis of the contralateral carotid artery was observed and treated during the observation period. CONCLUSION: The long-term results of this prospective, randomized, single-center study revealed a high incidence of relevant restenosis and neurologic symptoms after CAS. CEA seems to be superior to CAS concerning the development of restenosis and significant prevention of stroke. However, the long-term results of the ongoing multicenter trials have to be awaited for a final conclusion.

Endovascular repair of proximal endograft collapse after treatment for thoracic aortic disease.

We report two cases of proximal endograft collapse with an almost complete aortic occlusion after endovascular tube-graft treatment of thoracic aortic disease (thoracic aneurysm after a type B dissection, traumatic blunt aortic rupture) using the TAG Gore system. Oversizing of endografts is known to cause this complication. In our two cases, however, the oversizing was between 12% and 21.7%, which is less than the allowed oversizing of 25% that is recommended by the manufacturer. This endograft-related complication might be due to a poor alignment of the currently available endografts in highly angulated and tight aortic arches. In the first case, a combined endovascular and open emergent repair procedure achieved a reopening of the proximal endograft by proximal extension (TAG Gore). In the second case, proximal extension was not considered owing to a precise positioning of the endograft distal to the left carotid artery. A balloon-expanding Palmaz stent was therefore placed interventionally in the proximal part of the TAG graft to expand the endograft and to avoid another collapse of the device. This proximal endograft collapse has to be acknowledged as a potentially hazardous complication. We therefore recommend that the proximal part of thoracic endografts in the aortic arch should be closely monitored and we offer two possible endovascular solutions for resolving the problem of proximal endograft collapse.