Journal de medecine vasculaire · 2017
[Radiation-induced carotid stenosis: A personnalized approach].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gaudry M, David B, Omnes V, Bal L, De Masi M, Bartoli J M, Piquet P
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Surgical treatment of radio-induced carotid stenosis (RICS) is challenging and burdened by an elevated risk of local complications. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be a suitable alternative. The best approach is yet to be defined. We reviewed the results of both techniques following selection based on better-suitability characteristics (anatomic and clinical).
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 38 patients treated for 43 RICS from a group of 1230 patients who had carotid interventions between 2008 and 2015 (5 bilateral). Primary endpoints were morbidity and mortality at 30 days (transient ischemic attack, stroke, myocardial infarction, or death). Secondary endpoints were technical success, wound complications, cranial nerve injury (CNI), restenosis (≥50%) and recurrent symptoms.
RESULTS: RICS was symptomatic in 6 patients in the OR group and 3 in the CAS group. Lesions in the OR group were longer (P=0.02) and more calcified (P=0.08). Technical success rate was 100%. Cranial nerve injury rate was 14.2% (3/21). All injuries were completely resolved within several weeks. In the CAS group, technical success rate was 95% (21/22) with the one failure due to a residual stenosis exceeding 30%. Periprocedural stroke rates were 0% and 4.5% in the OR and CAS groups respectively (0/21 vs 1/22, P=0.32). There were no early deaths. Mean follow-up was 19.1 months (3-75). The restenosis rate was 9.5% (2/21) in the OR group and 9% (2/22) in the CAS group.
CONCLUSION: Our results do not support a preferred treatment strategy. The choice of treatment should be considered on an individual basis.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 38 patients treated for 43 RICS from a group of 1230 patients who had carotid interventions between 2008 and 2015 (5 bilateral). Primary endpoints were morbidity and mortality at 30 days (transient ischemic attack, stroke, myocardial infarction, or death). Secondary endpoints were technical success, wound complications, cranial nerve injury (CNI), restenosis (≥50%) and recurrent symptoms.
RESULTS: RICS was symptomatic in 6 patients in the OR group and 3 in the CAS group. Lesions in the OR group were longer (P=0.02) and more calcified (P=0.08). Technical success rate was 100%. Cranial nerve injury rate was 14.2% (3/21). All injuries were completely resolved within several weeks. In the CAS group, technical success rate was 95% (21/22) with the one failure due to a residual stenosis exceeding 30%. Periprocedural stroke rates were 0% and 4.5% in the OR and CAS groups respectively (0/21 vs 1/22, P=0.32). There were no early deaths. Mean follow-up was 19.1 months (3-75). The restenosis rate was 9.5% (2/21) in the OR group and 9% (2/22) in the CAS group.
CONCLUSION: Our results do not support a preferred treatment strategy. The choice of treatment should be considered on an individual basis.