Review of Hardware for PTCA

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72432/1/j.1540-8183.1988.tb00408.x.pd

Early Endarterectomy Carries a Lower Procedural Risk Than Early Stenting in Patients With Symptomatic Stenosis of the Internal Carotid Artery: Results From 4 Randomized Controlled Trials.

Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery benefit from early intervention. Heterogeneous data are available on the influence of timing of carotid artery stenting (CAS) on procedural risk. We investigated the association between timing of treatment (0-7 days and >7 days after the qualifying neurological event) and the 30-day risk of stroke or death after CAS or CEA in a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 4 randomized trials by the Carotid Stenosis Trialists' Collaboration. Analyses were done per protocol. To obtain combined estimates, logistic mixed models were applied. Among a total of 4138 patients, a minority received their allocated treatment within 7 days after symptom onset (14% CAS versus 11% CEA). Among patients treated within 1 week of symptoms, those treated by CAS had a higher risk of stroke or death compared with those treated with CEA: 8.3% versus 1.3%, risk ratio, 6.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.1 to 21.9 (adjusted for age at treatment, sex, and type of qualifying event). For interventions after 1 week, CAS was also more hazardous than CEA: 7.1% versus 3.6%, adjusted risk ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.7 (P value for interaction with time interval 0.06). In randomized trials comparing stenting with CEA for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, CAS was associated with a substantially higher periprocedural risk during the first 7 days after the onset of symptoms. Early surgery is safer than stenting for preventing future stroke. URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00190398; URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028; URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN25337470; URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732

Development of a polymer endovascular prosthesis and its implantation in porcine arteries

A polyethylene-terephthalate braided mesh stent has been developed for application in the (coronary) arterial tree. In vitro measurements showed that the radial pressure delivered by this device was in the same range as that of a stainless steel stent. Hysteresis-like behavior, however, occurred after constraining the polyester stent for a period of only 15 minutes on a delivery system for percutaneous implantation. This implies that the polymer stent must be mounted on this delivery system immediately before the placement procedure, and that either a diameter in the unconstrained condition must be selected, which is considerably larger than the diameter of the target vessel, or stent expansion has to be enhanced by balloon expansion. Taking into account the results obtained during the in vitro studies, we investigated the angiographic patency and histologic features after implantation of this polyester stent in peripheral arteries of pigs. In four animals eight stents were placed. Except for heparin during the implantation procedure only, antithrombotic or antiplatelet drugs were not administered. After 4 weeks repeat angiography was performed. Angiography revealed that five of the six correctly placed stents were patent. At autopsy, two additional patent stents proved to be located in the aortic bifurcation, probably due to failure of the delivery system. Quantitative assessment showed that the mean luminal diameters of the site of stent placement were 3.3 +/- 0.2 mm before, 3.2 +/- 0.2 mm immediately after, and 3.1 +/- 0.3 mm at 4 weeks after implantation. Histology demonstrated an inflammatory reaction of variable severity around the stent fibers. Quantitative histologic measurements showed that the thickness of the neointima was 114 +/- 38 mum after 4 weeks. In conclusion, polyester stents can be constructed with mechanical properties similar to stainless steel stents. Hysteresis-like behavior of polyester stents, however, influences the selection of the nominal stent diameter as well as the forces exerted to the vessel wall. After implantation in porcine peripheral arteries, five of six correctly placed stents were patent at 4 weeks. The extent of neointimal proliferation was similar to that observed after placement of metal stents in swine, despite the presence of a more pronounced inflammatory reaction

Grading of carotid artery stenosis with multidetector-row CT angiography: visual estimation or caliper measurements?

To assess the optimal method for grading carotid artery stenosis with computed tomographic angiography (CTA), we compared visual estimation to caliper measurements, and determined inter-observer variability and agreement relative to digital subtraction angiography (DSA). We included 46 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis for whom CTA and DSA of 55 carotids was available. Stenosis quantification by CTA using visual estimation (CTAVE) (method 1) was compared with caliper measurements using subjectively optimized wide window settings (method 2) or predefined contrast-dependent narrow window settings (method 3). Measurements were independently performed by two radiologists and two residents. To determine accuracy and inter-observer variability, we calculated linear weighted kappa, performed a Bland-Altman analysis and calculated mean difference (bias) and standard deviation of differences (SDD). For inter-observer variability, kappa analysis was “very good” (0.85) for expert observers using CTAVE compared with “good” (0.61) for experts using DSA. Compared with DSA, method 1 led to overestimation (bias 5.8–8.0%, SDD 10.6–14.4), method 3 led to underestimation (bias −6.3 to −3.0%, SDD 13.0–18.1). Measurement variability between DSA and visual estimation on CTA (SDD 11.5) is close to the inter-observer variability of repeated measurements on DSA that we found in this study (SDD 11.6). For CTA of carotids, stenosis grading based on visual estimation provides better agreement to grading by DSA compared with stenosis grading based on caliper measurements

Body mass index and outcome after revascularization for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

To determine whether the obesity paradox exists in patients who undergo carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. We combined individual patient data from 2 randomized trials (Endarterectomy vs Angioplasty in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis and Stent-Protected Angioplasty vs Carotid Endarterectomy) and 3 centers in a third trial (International Carotid Stenting Study). Baseline body mass index (BMI) was available for 1,969 patients and classified into 4 groups: <20, 20-<25, 25-<30, and ≥30 kg/m(2). Primary outcome was stroke or death, investigated separately for the periprocedural and postprocedural period (≤120 days/>120 days after randomization). This outcome was compared between different BMI strata in CAS and CEA patients separately, and in the total group. We performed intention-to-treat multivariable Cox regression analyses. Median follow-up was 2.0 years. Stroke or death occurred in 159 patients in the periprocedural (cumulative risk 8.1%) and in 270 patients in the postprocedural period (rate 4.8/100 person-years). BMI did not affect periprocedural risk of stroke or death for patients assigned to CAS (ptrend = 0.39) or CEA (ptrend = 0.77) or for the total group (ptrend = 0.48). Within the total group, patients with BMI 25-<30 had lower postprocedural risk of stroke or death than patients with BMI 20-<25 (BMI 25-<30 vs BMI 20-<25; hazard ratio 0.72; 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.94). BMI is not associated with periprocedural risk of stroke or death; however, BMI 25-<30 is associated with lower postprocedural risk than BMI 20-<25. These observations were similar for CAS and CEA

Safety of Carotid Revascularization in Patients With a History of Coronary Heart Disease

Background and Purpose- We investigated whether procedural stroke or death risk of carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is different in patients with and without history of coronary heart disease (CHD) and whether the treatment-specific impact of age differs. Methods- We combined individual patient data of 4754 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis from 4 randomized trials (EVA-3S [Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis], SPACE [Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy], ICSS [International Carotid Stenting Study], and CREST [Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial]). Procedural risk was defined as any stroke or death ≤30 days after treatment. We compared procedural risk between both treatments with Cox regression analysis, stratified by history of CHD and age (<70, 70-74, ≥75 years). History of CHD included myocardial infarction, angina, or coronary revascularization. Results- One thousand two hundred ninety-three (28%) patients had history of CHD. Procedural stroke or death risk was higher in patients with history of CHD. Procedural risk in patients treated with CAS compared with CEA was consistent in patients with history of CHD (8.3% versus 4.6%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.96; 95% CI, 0.67-5.73) and in those without (6.9% versus 3.6%; HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.40-2.65; Pinteraction=0.89). In patients with history of CHD, procedural risk was significantly higher after CAS compared with CEA in patients aged ≥75 (CAS-to-CEA HR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.32-5.85), but not in patients aged <70 (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.79-3.71) and 70 to 74 years (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.45-2.65). In contrast, in patients without history of CHD, procedural risk after CAS was higher in patients aged 70 to 74 (HR, 3.62; 95% CI, 1.80-7.29) and ≥75 years (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.52-4.59), but equal in patients aged <70 years (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.63-1.73; 3-way Pinteraction=0.09). Conclusions- History of CHD does not modify procedural stroke or death risk of CAS compared with CEA. CAS might be as safe as CEA in patients with history of CHD aged <75 years, whereas for patients without history of CHD, risk after CAS compared with CEA was only equal in those aged <70 years