Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Dec;99(12):809-15.
doi: 10.1007/s00392-010-0188-9. Epub 2010 Jul 2.

Carotid artery interventions for restenosis after prior stenting: is it different from interventions of de novo lesions? Results from the carotid artery stent (CAS)--registry of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausärzte (ALKK)

Affiliations

Carotid artery interventions for restenosis after prior stenting: is it different from interventions of de novo lesions? Results from the carotid artery stent (CAS)--registry of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausärzte (ALKK)

Ralf Zahn et al. Clin Res Cardiol. 2010 Dec.

Abstract

Objective: To compare characteristics and outcome of patients with re-stenoses after prior carotid artery stenting (CAS) treated with repeat carotid interventions (Re-CI) with CAS for de novo lesions.

Background: The treatment of re-stenosis is a major problem in vascular interventions. Patients with re-stenoses after prior CAS treated with Re-CI are not well defined.

Methods: We analyzed data from the prospective ALKK CAS Registry.

Results: Out of 3,817 CAS procedures 95 were intended in 93 patients (2.5%) for a restenosis after prior CAS and 3,722 CAS in 3,655 patients (97.5%) for a de novo stenosis. There was no difference in age (p = 0.302) or distribution of gender (p = 0.545) between the two groups. Patients treated for a restenosis after CAS were less likely to be treated for a symptomatic lesion (22.7 vs. 40.1%, p = 0.001). Coronary heart disease (p = 0.017), peripheral arterial disease (p < 0.001) as well as diabetes mellitus (p = 0.004) were more prevalent in the restenosis group. Lesions were less complicated in restenosis patients, with less ulcers (7.4 vs. 19.9%, p = 0.003) and less severe calcifications (7.4 vs. 23.6%, p < 0.001). The intended interventions were more often not performed in the Re-CI group (9.5 vs. 3.3%; p = 0.001). In-hospital, the stroke or death rate was 0% in the Re-CI group as compared to 3.1% in the de novo group (p = 0.115).

Conclusions: Patients treated with Re-CI for repeat stenoses after prior CAS represent 2.5% of current CAS patients. Although representing a subgroup with more concomitant diseases, Re-CI seems to be associated with lower event rates as compared to CAS for de novo lesions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Stroke. 2008 Aug;39(8):2325-30 - PubMed
    1. Am J Surg. 2006 Nov;192(5):583-8 - PubMed
    1. Ann Surg. 1985 Jul;202(1):28-35 - PubMed
    1. J Endovasc Ther. 2006 Aug;13(4):429-35 - PubMed
    1. J Neurosurg. 2005 Jan;102(1):29-37 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources