Home > Journals > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery > Past Issues > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2016 August;57(4) > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2016 August;57(4):503-9

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

Publishing options
eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES  VASCULAR SECTION 

The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2016 August;57(4):503-9

Copyright © 2016 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Conventional carotid endarterectomy versus stenting: comparison of restenosis rates in arteries with identical predisposing factors

Eugenio MARTELLI, Diego PATACCONI, Gennaro DE VIVO, Arnaldo IPPOLITI

Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy


PDF


BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to investigate the possible role of individual predisposition in the pathogenesis of carotid restenosis.
METHODS: Over 1700 patients have undergone carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in our institute over the past 15 years. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of those who also had contralateral carotid stenting (CAS) for primary atherosclerotic stenosis and recorded the rates of post-CEA and post-CAS restenosis ≥50%.
RESULTS: In the 29 cases analyzed (21 men/8 women), CEA was performed with conventional technique and direct suturing in most cases. Mean ages at the time of CEA and CAS were 69.2±6.6 and 73±6.7 yrs, respectively, and risk profiles at the 2 time points were similar: hypertension (96.5%), dyslipidemia (55.2%), smoking (51.7%), diabetes (31%), coronary artery disease (48.3%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (37.9%), and chronic renal failure (13.8%). Antiplatelet therapy protocols were identical for the two procedures. During follow-up (mean: 67.25±51.6 months after CEA, 24.6±16.9 months after CAS), Duplex scans revealed restenosis in 12 patients (9 arteries treated with CEA, 6 managed with CAS). In three patients, restenosis was bilateral. Restenosis-free survival rates at five years were 85% after CEA and 66% after CAS (P=NS).
CONCLUSIONS: In this selected group of patients, CEA and CAS were associated with a similar incidence of restenosis. Only 25% of the patients who developed restenosis did so after both procedures. These preliminary findings indicate that individual predisposition does not play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of restenosis. To confirm this conclusion, an analysis of a much larger, multicenter cohort is essential.

top of page