JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Influence of the hostile neck on restenosis after carotid stenting.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid stenosis is favored over carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with a hostile neck from prior CEA or cervical irradiation (XRT). However, the restenosis rate after CAS in patients with hostile necks is variable in the literature. The objective of this study was to quantify differences in the in-stent restenosis (ISR)/occlusion and reintervention rates after CAS in patients with and without a hostile neck. Here we hypothesize that patients with hostile necks have an increased ISR, and that this increase may add morbidity to these patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients undergoing CAS from 2007 to 2013 for carotid artery stenosis with follow-up imaging at our institution were queried from our carotid database (n = 236). Patients with hostile necks, including both CAS after prior CEA (n = 65) and prior XRT (n = 37), were compared with patients who underwent CAS for other reasons including both anatomical (n = 46) and medical comorbidities (n = 88). The primary end points were ISR, repeat intervention, and stent occlusion. Secondary end points of the study were stroke/myocardial infarction (MI)/death at 30 days, perioperative cardiovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, MI, groin access complications, hyperperfusion syndrome, and periprocedural hypotension or bradycardia.

RESULTS: Despite the hostile neck cohort being younger and having lower incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, and renal insufficiency, they had a greater incidence of ISR (11% vs. 4%; P = .03) and required more reinterventions (8% vs. 2%; P = .04). Stent occlusion and periprocedural morbidity/mortality were not different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients with hostile necks have increased risk of restenosis and need for reinterventions after CAS compared with patients without a hostile neck. However, they do not appear to have higher rates of stent occlusion or per-procedural events.

Full text links

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Group 7SearchHeart failure treatmentPapersTopicsCollectionsEffects of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Patients With Heart Failure Importance: Only 1 class of glucose-lowering agents-sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors-has been reported to decrease the risk of cardiovascular events primarily by reducingSeptember 1, 2017: JAMA CardiologyAssociations of albuminuria in patients with chronic heart failure: findings in the ALiskiren Observation of heart Failure Treatment study.CONCLUSIONS: Increased UACR is common in patients with heart failure, including non-diabetics. Urinary albumin creatininineJul, 2011: European Journal of Heart FailureRandomized Controlled TrialEffects of Liraglutide on Clinical Stability Among Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Review

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app