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
. 2024 Jan 4;12(1):120.
doi: 10.3390/healthcare12010120.

Mid-Term Results of an Italian Multicentric Experience with the RoadsaverTM Dual-Layer Carotid Stent System

Affiliations

Mid-Term Results of an Italian Multicentric Experience with the RoadsaverTM Dual-Layer Carotid Stent System

Olga Silvestri et al. Healthcare (Basel). .

Abstract

Background: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) using first-generation single-layer stents is widely accepted as a good alternative to standard carotid endarterectomy (CEA) but it is associated with worse outcomes in terms of both plaque prolapse and cerebral embolization.

Aim: To evaluate the perioperative and midterm outcomes of CAS using the new-generation RoadsaverTM dual-layer micromesh-covered carotid stent.

Methods: Herein, we present the results of an observational, retrospective, multicentric study on non-consecutive patients who underwent the CAS procedure between January 2017 and December 2022 at three Italian, high-volume vascular surgery centers. The inclusion criteria were the patients' eligibility for the CAS procedure in accordance with the current Italian guidelines, and the implantation of a Roadsaver stent. Both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients were included in the study. The patients requiring reintervention for carotid restenosis following CEA were also included. Perioperative data regarding procedural success was defined as the successful implantation of the device in the desired position, less than 30% residual stenosis, and the absence of intraoperative neurological complications. The primary outcome was any adverse cerebrovascular event such as stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) during the procedure and/or after discharge. The secondary outcomes were the need for further intervention, and all-cause death following procedure.

Results: Three-hundred-fifty-three (353) patients were included in our study; the mean age was 74.3 years. A total of 5.9% of the patients were symptomatic on their operated side, while 7.3% had contralateral carotid occlusion. A cerebral embolic protection device (CPD) was employed in all patients. A total of 13.3% of the patients were operated on for restenosis after CEA Technical success was achieved in 96.9% of the cases with an intraoperative report of six TIAs (1.7%) and six ipsilateral strokes (1.7%). The mean hospital stay was 1.8 days. The thirty-day follow up showed one TIA and one more stroke. At the mean 35-month follow-up time, the primary outcome was present in six patients (1.7%), where four TIAs (1.1%) and two strokes (0.5%) were reported. Restenosis occurred in five patients (1.4%). Death for any cause was reported in 11 patients (3.1%).

Conclusions: As most recent, high-quality studies show, the CAS procedure with second-generation devices such as the Roadsaver stent is safe and effective in preventing carotid-related cerebrovascular events in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The intraoperative and postoperative cerebrovascular complication rate in high volume centers is very low, ensuring confidence in its employment for the CAS procedure along with a CPD as a valid alternative to CEA.

Keywords: carotid artery stenosis; carotid artery stenting; dual-layer stent; micromesh; stroke.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Kaplan–Meier analysis of 24 months survival free from TIA or stroke.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Kaplan–Meier analysis of 24 months survival free from stent occlusion and/or restenosis.

Similar articles

References

    1. Pini R., Faggioli G., Paraskevas K.I., Campana F., Sufali G., Rocchi C., Palermo S., Gallitto E., Gargiulo M. Carotid Artery Stenting with Double-Layer Stent: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2022 doi: 10.1177/15266028221126940. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Parlani G., De Rango P., Norgiolini L., Cao P. Timing of Complications during Carotid Artery Stenting. How Can they Be Predicted? Acta Chir. Belg. 2006;106:367–371. doi: 10.1080/00015458.2006.11679909. - DOI - PubMed
    1. McCabe D.J.H., Pereira A.C., Clifton A., Bland J.M., Brown M.M. Restenosis After Carotid Angioplasty, Stenting, or Endarterectomy in the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS) Stroke. 2005;36:281–286. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000152333.75932.fe. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hrbáč T., Fiedler J., Procházka V., Jonszta T., Roubec M., Pakizer D., Václavík D., Netuka D., Heryán T., Školoudík D. Comparison of carotid endarterectomy and repeated carotid angioplasty and stenting for in-stent restenosis (CERCAS trial): A randomised study. Stroke Vasc. Neurol. 2023;8:2075. doi: 10.1136/svn-2022-002075. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brott T.G., Hobson R.W., Howard G., Roubin G.S., Clark W.M., Brooks W., Mackey A., Hill M.D., Leimgruber P.P., Sheffet A.J., et al. Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010;363:11–23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0912321. - DOI - PMC - PubMed