Follow-up after undersized dilatation of targeted lesions in carotid artery stenting

What should be the Optimal Carotid Stent Opening Rate Without Post-Dilation?

BACKGROUND

There is not a widely accepted optimal rate of stent opening in patients underwent carotid artery stenting. In this study we evaluated the effect of carotid stent opening rate (CSOR) without performing post-dilation on in-hospital and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 825 patient patients underwent carotid artery stenting without post-dilation enrolled to the study. The patients divided into two groups according to their final CSOR (50% ≤ Post-stent deployment (SD) <80% and 80% ≤ Post-SD ≤ 100%). In-hospital and 3-year outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

During hospitalization, the rate of ipsilateral stroke, major stroke and transient ischemic attacks were similar between the groups (respectively; 6.2% vs. 4.1, P = 0.190; 1.5% vs. 1.8, P = 0.811; 1.5% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.683). The 3-year Kaplan-Meier overall survival rates for the first and second groups were 87.6% and 84.4%, respectively (log rank test P = 0.426). The 3-year Kaplan-Meier overall cumulative ipsilateral stroke rates for the first and second groups were 88.0% and 88.6%, respectively (log rank test P = 0.409) CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that a CSOR higher than 50% without performing a post-dilation might be an effective therapeutic approach since there was not a significant difference regarding outcomes between the patients with a 50% ≤ Post-SD <80% and 80% ≤ Post-SD ≤ 100%. The need for post-stent balloon dilation might have been eliminated due to subsequent stent self-expansion.

Effect of Open- vs Closed-Cell Stent Design on Periprocedural Outcomes and Restenosis After Carotid Artery Stenting: A Systematic Review and Comprehensive Meta-analysis

Purpose:To compare periprocedural complications and in-stent restenosis rates associated with open- vs closed-cell stent designs used in carotid artery stenting (CAS). Methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify all randomized and observational studies published in English up to October 31, 2017, that compared open- vs closed-cell stent designs in CAS. Identified studies were included if they reported the following outcomes: stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), hemodynamic depression, new ischemic lesions detected on imaging, and death within 30 days, as well as the incidence of in-stent restenosis. A random-effects model meta-analysis was employed. Model results are reported as the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. Results: Thirty-three studies (2 randomized trials) comprising 20, 291 patients (mean age 71.3±3.0 years; 74.6% men) were included. Patients in the open-cell stent group had a statistically significant lower risk of restenosis ⩾40% (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.92; I2=0%) and ⩾70% (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.52; I2=0%) at a mean follow-up of 24 months. No statistically significant differences were identified for periprocedural stroke, TIA, new ischemic lesions, MI, hemodynamic depression, or death within 30 days after CAS. Sensitivity analysis of the 2 randomized controlled trials only did not point to any significant differences either. Conclusion: Use of open-cell stent design in CAS is associated with a decreased risk for restenosis when compared to the closed-cell stent, without significant differences in periprocedural outcomes.