Comparison of angioplasty and stenting with cerebral protection versus endarterectomy for treatment of internal carotid artery stenosis in elderly patients. Journal of vascular surgery : official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter. [J Vasc Surg] Journal article

Title	Comparison of angioplasty and stenting with cerebral protection versus endarterectomy for treatment of internal carotid artery stenosis in elderly patients.
Author(s)	Kastrup A, Schulz JB, Raygrotzki S, Gröschel K, Ernemann U
Institution	Department of Neurology, University of Tübingen. andreas.kastrup@uni-jena.de
Source	J Vasc Surg 2004 Nov; 40(5):945-51.
MeSH	Age Factors Aged Aged, 80 and over Angioplasty, Balloon Carotid Stenosis Cerebrovascular Accident Cohort Studies Comparative Study Endarterectomy Female Follow-Up Studies Humans Intraoperative Complications Male Probability Retrospective Studies Risk Assessment Sensitivity and Specificity Severity of Illness Index Sex Factors Stents Survival Analysis Treatment Outcome Ultrasonography, Doppler
Abstract	PURPOSE: Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is being evaluated as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treatment of severe carotid artery stenosis. Because CAS does not require general anesthesia and is less traumatic, it might be especially advantageous in older patients, but data comparing these 2 treatment methods in older patients are scarce. METHODS: The periprocedural complication rates in 53 patients aged 75 years or older who had undergone protected CAS between June 2001 and April 2004 were compared with those in a group of 110 patients aged 75 years or older who had undergone CEA between January 1997 and December 2001, before widespread introduction of CAS procedures at our institution. All patients were evaluated by a neurologist both before and after surgery. According to the criteria set forth by the large trials the occurrence of minor, major, or fatal stroke, and myocardial infarction within 30 days was determined. RESULTS: The demographic characteristics and indications for an intervention were similar in both treatment groups. Thirty patients (57%) in the CAS group had symptomatic carotid stenosis, compared with 69 patients (63%) in the CEA group. In neither group was there any fatal stroke or myocardial infarction. The 30-day stroke rate was significantly higher in the CAS group (4 minor, 2 major strokes; 11.3%) than in the CEA group (no minor, 2 major strokes; 1.8%; P < .05). Although the 30-day major stroke rate between CAS and CEA groups was comparable (3.8% vs 1.8%; P = 0.6), this effect was mainly attributable to a significantly higher rate of minor stroke in the CAS group (7.5% vs 0%; P < .05). CONCLUSION: Despite the use of cerebral protection devices the neurologic complication rate in patients aged 75 years and older associated with CAS was significantly higher than with CEA performed by highly skilled surgeons at our academic institution. Although this finding is mainly based on a significantly higher rate of minor stroke in the CAS group, the common practice of preferentially submitting older patients to CAS is questionable, and should be abandoned until the results of further randomized trials are available.
Language	eng
Pub Type(s)	Journal Article
PubMed ID	15557909

Advertise on this site.