DOI 10.1227/neu.0b013e318209ce03
Endovascular stenting of extracranial carotid and vertebral artery dissections: a systematic review of the literature.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
Carotid and vertebral artery dissections are a leading cause of stroke in young individuals.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the published safety and efficacy of endovascular stenting for extracranial artery dissection.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify all cases of endovascular management of extracranial carotid and vertebral artery dissections.
RESULTS
For carotid dissections, our review yielded 31 published reports including 140 patients (153 vessels). Reported etiologies were traumatic (48%, n = 64), spontaneous (37%, n = 49), and iatrogenic (16%, n = 21). The technical success rate of stenting was 99%, and the procedural complication rate was 1.3%. Mean angiographic follow-up was 12.8 months (range, 2-72 months) and revealed in-stent stenosis or occlusion in 2% of patients. Mean clinical follow-up was 17.7 months (range, 1-72 months), and neurological events were seen in 1.4% of patients. For vertebral artery dissections, our review revealed 8 reports including 10 patients (12 vessels). Etiologies were traumatic (60%, n = 6), spontaneous (20%, n = 2), and iatrogenic (20%, n = 2). There was a 100% technical success rate. The mean angiographic follow-up period was 7.5 months (range, 2-12 months). No new neurological events were reported during a mean clinical follow-up period of 26.4 months (range, 3-55 months).
CONCLUSION
Endovascular management of extracranial arterial dissection continues to evolve. Current experience shows that this treatment option is safe and technically feasible. Prospective randomized trials compared with medical management are needed to further elucidate the role of stenting.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.