Outcomes of carotid artery stenting at a high-volume Brazilian interventional neuroradiology center
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2015 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Clinics |
Texto Completo: | https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/100936 |
Resumo: | OBJECTIVES: Carotid artery stenting is an emerging revascularization alternative to carotid endarterectomy. However, guidelines have recommended carotid artery stenting only if the rate of periprocedural stroke or death is < 6% among symptomatic patients and < 3% among asymptomatic patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare clinical outcomes of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients who had undergone carotid artery stenting as a first-intention treatment. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent carotid artery stenting by our interventional neuroradiology team was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups: symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The primary endpoints were ipsilateral ischemic stroke, ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 30 days. The secondary endpoints included ipsilateral ischemic stroke, ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage, ipsilateral transient ischemic attack and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events between the 1- and 12-month follow-ups. RESULTS: A total of 200 consecutive patients were evaluated. The primary endpoints obtained in the symptomatic vs. asymptomatic groups were ipsilateral stroke (2.4% vs. 2.7%, p = 1.00), ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage (0.8% vs. 0.0%, p = 1.00) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (4.7% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.71). The secondary endpoints obtained in the symptomatic vs. asymptomatic groups were ipsilateral ischemic stroke (0.0% vs. 0.0%), ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage (0.0% vs. 0.0%), ipsilateral TIA (0.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 1.00) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (11.2% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, carotid artery stenting was similarly safe and effective when performed as a first-intention treatment in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The study results comply with the safety requirements from current recommendations to perform carotid artery stenting as an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy. |
id |
USP-19_cd4eb99dab6feff875a26d5c6c073079 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:revistas.usp.br:article/100936 |
network_acronym_str |
USP-19 |
network_name_str |
Clinics |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Outcomes of carotid artery stenting at a high-volume Brazilian interventional neuroradiology center OBJECTIVES: Carotid artery stenting is an emerging revascularization alternative to carotid endarterectomy. However, guidelines have recommended carotid artery stenting only if the rate of periprocedural stroke or death is < 6% among symptomatic patients and < 3% among asymptomatic patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare clinical outcomes of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients who had undergone carotid artery stenting as a first-intention treatment. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent carotid artery stenting by our interventional neuroradiology team was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups: symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The primary endpoints were ipsilateral ischemic stroke, ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 30 days. The secondary endpoints included ipsilateral ischemic stroke, ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage, ipsilateral transient ischemic attack and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events between the 1- and 12-month follow-ups. RESULTS: A total of 200 consecutive patients were evaluated. The primary endpoints obtained in the symptomatic vs. asymptomatic groups were ipsilateral stroke (2.4% vs. 2.7%, p = 1.00), ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage (0.8% vs. 0.0%, p = 1.00) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (4.7% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.71). The secondary endpoints obtained in the symptomatic vs. asymptomatic groups were ipsilateral ischemic stroke (0.0% vs. 0.0%), ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage (0.0% vs. 0.0%), ipsilateral TIA (0.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 1.00) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (11.2% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, carotid artery stenting was similarly safe and effective when performed as a first-intention treatment in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The study results comply with the safety requirements from current recommendations to perform carotid artery stenting as an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy. Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo2015-03-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/10093610.6061/clinics/2015(03)05Clinics; Vol. 70 No. 3 (2015); 180-184Clinics; v. 70 n. 3 (2015); 180-184Clinics; Vol. 70 Núm. 3 (2015); 180-1841980-53221807-5932reponame:Clinicsinstname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPenghttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/100936/99604Copyright (c) 2015 Clinicsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCastro-Afonso, Luis Henrique de Nakiri, Guilherme Seizem Monsignore, Lucas Moretti Santos, Daniela dos Camilo, Millene Rodrigues Dias, Francisco Antunes Cougo-Pinto, Pedro Telles Barreira, Clara Monteiro Antunes Alessio-Alves, Frederico Fernandes Fábio, Soraia Ramos Cabette Pontes-Neto, Octávio Marques Abud, Daniel Giansante 2015-07-28T13:01:12Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/100936Revistahttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinicsPUBhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/oai||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br1980-53221807-5932opendoar:2015-07-28T13:01:12Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Outcomes of carotid artery stenting at a high-volume Brazilian interventional neuroradiology center |
title |
Outcomes of carotid artery stenting at a high-volume Brazilian interventional neuroradiology center |
spellingShingle |
Outcomes of carotid artery stenting at a high-volume Brazilian interventional neuroradiology center Castro-Afonso, Luis Henrique de |
title_short |
Outcomes of carotid artery stenting at a high-volume Brazilian interventional neuroradiology center |
title_full |
Outcomes of carotid artery stenting at a high-volume Brazilian interventional neuroradiology center |
title_fullStr |
Outcomes of carotid artery stenting at a high-volume Brazilian interventional neuroradiology center |
title_full_unstemmed |
Outcomes of carotid artery stenting at a high-volume Brazilian interventional neuroradiology center |
title_sort |
Outcomes of carotid artery stenting at a high-volume Brazilian interventional neuroradiology center |
author |
Castro-Afonso, Luis Henrique de |
author_facet |
Castro-Afonso, Luis Henrique de Nakiri, Guilherme Seizem Monsignore, Lucas Moretti Santos, Daniela dos Camilo, Millene Rodrigues Dias, Francisco Antunes Cougo-Pinto, Pedro Telles Barreira, Clara Monteiro Antunes Alessio-Alves, Frederico Fernandes Fábio, Soraia Ramos Cabette Pontes-Neto, Octávio Marques Abud, Daniel Giansante |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Nakiri, Guilherme Seizem Monsignore, Lucas Moretti Santos, Daniela dos Camilo, Millene Rodrigues Dias, Francisco Antunes Cougo-Pinto, Pedro Telles Barreira, Clara Monteiro Antunes Alessio-Alves, Frederico Fernandes Fábio, Soraia Ramos Cabette Pontes-Neto, Octávio Marques Abud, Daniel Giansante |
author2_role |
author author author author author author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Castro-Afonso, Luis Henrique de Nakiri, Guilherme Seizem Monsignore, Lucas Moretti Santos, Daniela dos Camilo, Millene Rodrigues Dias, Francisco Antunes Cougo-Pinto, Pedro Telles Barreira, Clara Monteiro Antunes Alessio-Alves, Frederico Fernandes Fábio, Soraia Ramos Cabette Pontes-Neto, Octávio Marques Abud, Daniel Giansante |
description |
OBJECTIVES: Carotid artery stenting is an emerging revascularization alternative to carotid endarterectomy. However, guidelines have recommended carotid artery stenting only if the rate of periprocedural stroke or death is < 6% among symptomatic patients and < 3% among asymptomatic patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare clinical outcomes of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients who had undergone carotid artery stenting as a first-intention treatment. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent carotid artery stenting by our interventional neuroradiology team was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups: symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The primary endpoints were ipsilateral ischemic stroke, ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 30 days. The secondary endpoints included ipsilateral ischemic stroke, ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage, ipsilateral transient ischemic attack and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events between the 1- and 12-month follow-ups. RESULTS: A total of 200 consecutive patients were evaluated. The primary endpoints obtained in the symptomatic vs. asymptomatic groups were ipsilateral stroke (2.4% vs. 2.7%, p = 1.00), ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage (0.8% vs. 0.0%, p = 1.00) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (4.7% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.71). The secondary endpoints obtained in the symptomatic vs. asymptomatic groups were ipsilateral ischemic stroke (0.0% vs. 0.0%), ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage (0.0% vs. 0.0%), ipsilateral TIA (0.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 1.00) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (11.2% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, carotid artery stenting was similarly safe and effective when performed as a first-intention treatment in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The study results comply with the safety requirements from current recommendations to perform carotid artery stenting as an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy. |
publishDate |
2015 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2015-03-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/100936 10.6061/clinics/2015(03)05 |
url |
https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/100936 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.6061/clinics/2015(03)05 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/100936/99604 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2015 Clinics info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2015 Clinics |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Clinics; Vol. 70 No. 3 (2015); 180-184 Clinics; v. 70 n. 3 (2015); 180-184 Clinics; Vol. 70 Núm. 3 (2015); 180-184 1980-5322 1807-5932 reponame:Clinics instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP) instacron:USP |
instname_str |
Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
instacron_str |
USP |
institution |
USP |
reponame_str |
Clinics |
collection |
Clinics |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br |
_version_ |
1800222761721790464 |