Long-term results of cephalad arteries percutanoeus transluminal angioplasty with stent implantation (The CAPTAS registry)

Clinical Outcomes of Second- versus First-Generation Carotid Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Single-cohort studies suggest that second-generation stents (SGS; “mesh stents”) may improve carotid artery stenting (CAS) outcomes by limiting peri- and postprocedural cerebral embolism. SGS differ in the stent frame construction, mesh material, and design, as well as in mesh-to-frame position (inside/outside). Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes of SGS in relation to first-generation stents (FGSs; single-layer) in CAS. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies with FGSs and SGS (PRISMA methodology, 3302 records). Endpoints were 30-day death, stroke, myocardial infarction (DSM), and 12-month ipsilateral stroke (IS) and restenosis (ISR). A random-effect model was applied. Results: Data of 68,422 patients from 112 eligible studies (68.2% men, 44.9% symptomatic) were meta-analyzed. Thirty-day DSM was 1.30% vs. 4.11% (p < 0.01, data for SGS vs. FGS). Among SGS, both Casper/Roadsaver and CGuard reduced 30-day DSM (by 2.78 and 3.03 absolute percent, p = 0.02 and p < 0.001), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. SGSs significantly improved outcomes compared with closed-cell FGS (30-day stroke 0.6% vs. 2.32%, p = 0.014; DSM 1.3% vs. 3.15%, p < 0.01). At 12 months, in relation to FGS, Casper/Roadsaver reduced IS (−3.25%, p < 0.05) but increased ISR (+3.19%, p = 0.04), CGuard showed a reduction in both IS and ISR (−3.13%, −3.63%; p = 0.01, p < 0.01), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. Conclusions: Pooled SGS use was associated with improved short- and long-term clinical results of CAS. Individual SGS types, however, differed significantly in their outcomes, indicating a lack of a “mesh stent” class effect. Findings from this meta-analysis may provide clinically relevant information in anticipation of large-scale randomized trials.

A meta-analysis of the effect of stent design on clinical and radiologic outcomes of carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

Procedural characteristics, including stent design, may influence the outcome of carotid artery stenting (CAS). A thorough comparison of the effect of stent design on outcome of CAS is thus warranted to allow for optimal evidence-based clinical decision making. This study sought to evaluate the effect of stent design on clinical and radiologic outcomes of CAS.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases in May 2018. Included were articles reporting on the occurrence of clinical short- and intermediate-term major adverse events (MAEs; any stroke or death) or radiologic adverse events (new ischemic lesions on postprocedural magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging [MR-DWI], restenosis, or stent fracture) in different stent designs used to treat carotid artery stenosis. Random effects models were used to calculate combined overall effect sizes. Metaregression was performed to identify the effect of specific stents on MAE rates.

RESULTS

From 2654 unique identified articles, two randomized, controlled trials and 66 cohort studies were eligible for analysis (including 46,728 procedures). Short-term clinical MAE rates were similar for patients treated with open cell vs closed cell or hybrid stents. Use of an Acculink stent was associated with a higher risk of short-term MAE compared with a Wallstent (risk ratio [RR], 1.51; P = .03), as was true for use of Precise stent vs Xact stent (RR, 1.55; P < .001). Intermediate-term clinical MAE rates were similar for open vs closed cell stents. Use of open cell stents predisposed to a 25% higher chance (RR, 1.25; P = .03) of developing postprocedural new ischemic lesions on MR-DWI. No differences were observed in the incidence of restenosis, stent fracture, or intraprocedural hemodynamic depression with respect to different stent design.

CONCLUSIONS

Stent design is not associated with short- or intermediate-term clinical MAE rates in patients undergoing CAS. Furthermore, the division in open and closed cell stent design might conceal true differences in single stent efficacy. Nevertheless, open cell stenting resulted in a significantly higher number of subclinical postprocedural new ischemic lesions detected on MR-DWI compared with closed cell stenting. An individualized patient data meta-analysis, including future studies with prospective homogenous study design, is required to adequately correct for known risk factors and to provide definite conclusions with respect to carotid stent design for specific subgroups.

Stent placement for treatment of long-segment (≥40 mm) carotid atherosclerotic stenosis: results and long-term follow-up in a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Treatment of long segment carotid stenosis (≥40 mm) with carotid artery stenting (CAS) has rarely been reported. In randomized trials, use of longer stents (>40 mm) has been associated with adverse clinical events. Here, we report our preliminary experience on the stent length and outcome in treating long segment carotid arterial stenosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between August 2003 and February 2013, 22 patients with long segment stenosis of the carotid artery were treated by CAS. The mean stent length was 58.5 mm (50-60 mm). The procedures were successful in all patients, and all reported remarkable relief of symptoms immediately after stent placement. Complications included 1 case of cerebral hemorrhage and one death from myocardial infarction at 10 months. The mean follow up was 27.3 months (10-60 months). One follow-up was lost. 2 patients had late stent thrombosis at 22 and 36 months by CTA follow-up. 18 patients had persistent relief, and angiography/CTA showed normal carotid flow.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that stenting for long carotid stenosis (≥40 mm) can be beneficial. Large scale clinical trial is needed to further evaluate its efficacy and safety.