Total amount: € 0,00
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,632
Online ISSN 1827-191X
HYBRID PROCEDURES IN VASCULAR SURGERY
Hart J. P., Bosiers M., Deloose K., Uflacker R., Schönholz C. J.
1 Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery and Interventional Radiology, Medical University of South Carolina
Charleston, SC, USA;
2 Department of Radiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA;
3 Department of Vascular Surgery, AZ St-Blasius, Dendermonde, Belgium
Over the past several years, there has been continued significant interest in refinement of patient selection, devices, procedures and protocols in an effort to optimize the outcome of percutaneous intervention for carotid bifurcation stenosis, including: ongoing National Institutes of Health and manufacturer trials and registries; the further refinement of existing devices and emergence of new platforms to attain distal embolic protection; ongoing study of what really constitutes a high-risk carotid surgery or stenting patient; and attention to device characteristics and patient-device matching. Within the latter area, considerable interest has focused on stent characteristics that have the potential to impact short and long-term outcome when compared with other stent design strategies when studied in large series. The stent in carotid artery intervention occupies a unique role in that after the embolic protection system has been removed, it is the main line of defense (in concert with aggressive dual antiplatelet therapy) from embolic and thromboembolic complications that may arise from the newly remodeled plaque after post-stent angioplasty. In this review, we aim to update the current status of efforts to relate stent design strategy to outcome in intervention for extracranial carotid artery disease with a focus primarily on the function of “free cell area” (typically lower with closed-cell stents and higher with open-cell stents) in analyses of outcome in carotid artery stenting. Also, the potential role of closed-cell vs. open-cell stent selection in other reports related to carotid artery stenting outcome or complications is reviewed. Rigorous studies have examined the issue of free cell area and arrived at disparate conclusions. Randomized data on the impact of free cell area and cell design strategy on carotid intervention are presently lacking. However, we believe sufficient data and rationale exist 1) to warrant ongoing study of the impact of stent design on outcome in carotid intervention; and 2) to make consideration of closed-cell (low free cell area) stent use a reasonable approach to device selection--when patient factors, lesion characteristics, or device availability make doing so possible.