Carotid artery stenting: Periprocedural outcomes

Organ G., Erdoǧan C., HAKYEMEZ B.

Turkiye Klinikleri Cardiovascular Sciences, vol.23, no.1, pp.40-47, 2011 (Scopus) identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 23 Issue: 1
  • Publication Date: 2011
  • Journal Name: Turkiye Klinikleri Cardiovascular Sciences
  • Journal Indexes: Scopus
  • Page Numbers: pp.40-47
  • Keywords: Atherosclerosis, Carotid artery diseases, Stents, Stroke
  • Bursa Uludag University Affiliated: Yes


Objective: Stroke is the third most common cause of death after cardiac diseases and cancer in western countries. Atherosclerosis is responsible for 90% of cerebral thromboembolic events and 90% of the atherosclerotic lesions of carotid artery system are observed in a 2 cm segment comprising the origin of internal carotid artery (ICA). In treatment of carotid stenosis, the aim is to prevent stroke. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an alternative of carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA). There are many studies comparing those two treatment options. In this study we determined the periprocedural neurologic complication rate on carotid artery stenting patients. Material and Methods: In this retrospective study, we analyzed the data of 96 cases/105 arteries (59 [61.4%] symptomatic and 37 [38.6%] asymptomatic cases) that were treated for carotid artery stenosis between June 2007 and April 2010. Patient's demographic variables and percentages of stenosis, the number and varieties of used stents and embolic protection devices with periprocedural 30 days stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) and death rate were investigated. Long-term outcomes were excluded from the study because of the limited number of cases and lack of a homogeneous distribution among the treatment lengths. Results: In our cases, death rate was 0.9%, minor stroke rate were 4.7%, and stroke/death rate was 5.7%. No transient ischemic attack (TIA), major stroke, or MI was observed. There was no significant difference betwen the symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Conclusion: CAS has acceptable periprocedural complication rates and therefore can be applied in such cases. Currently, it is a good alternative to CEA. Further studies are required to determine the patients that would benefit more from CAS, rather than CEA. Copyright © 2011 by Türkiy e Klinikleri.