• Something wrong with this record ?

Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation

J. Sýkora, K. Zeleňák, M. Vorčák, M. Števík, M. Sýkorová, J. Sivák, M. Rovňák, J. Zapletalová, J. Mužík, I. Šinák, E. Kurča, L. Meyer, J. Fiehler

. 2022 ; 45 (9) : 1257-1266. [pub] 20220707

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article

Grant support
313011W875 European Regional Development Fund

E-resources Online Full text

NLK ProQuest Central from 1997-01-01 to 1 year ago
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost) from 2003-02-01 to 1 year ago
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest) from 1997-01-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) from 1997-01-01 to 1 year ago

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to report intermediate-term results of duplex ultrasound follow-up of carotid artery stenting performed with the dual-layer stent as compared to concurrent patients treated with other commercially available single-layer carotid stents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single centre, retrospective, nonrandomized study including 162 non-consecutive patients with 199 implanted carotid stents treated over a 7-year period was conducted. Patients with at least one ultrasound examination after treatment were included. Procedural and follow-up data for patients treated with the dual-layer stent implantation (83 stents) vs first-generation carotid stents implantations (116 stents) were compared. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 24.0 months (IQR 10-32 months) for dual-layer stents and 27.5 months (IQR 10.3-59 months) for single-layer stents. The rate of severe restenosis was significantly higher in the dual-layer stent group than in the single-layer group (13.3% [11/83] vs 3.4% [4/116], p = 0.01). Seven reinterventions were performed in 5 patients with dual-layer stents. The rate of reintervention was significantly higher compared to no reinterventions in single-layer stents (6% [5/83] vs 0% [0/116], p = 0.012). Patients with restenosis had significantly higher presence of dyslipidaemia (100% [12/12] vs 63.3% [95/150], p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world cohort of patients undergoing carotid artery stenting, the patients treated with low-profile dual-layer micromesh stent showed higher rates of restenosis and reinterventions compared to first-generation single-layer stents.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22024525
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20221031100926.0
007      
ta
008      
221017s2022 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1007/s00270-022-03200-4 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)35798859
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Sýkora, Ján $u Clinic of Radiology, Comenius University's Jessenius Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Kollárova 2, 036 59, Martin, Slovakia $u Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc, I. P. Pavlova 185/6, 77520, Olomouc, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation / $c J. Sýkora, K. Zeleňák, M. Vorčák, M. Števík, M. Sýkorová, J. Sivák, M. Rovňák, J. Zapletalová, J. Mužík, I. Šinák, E. Kurča, L. Meyer, J. Fiehler
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to report intermediate-term results of duplex ultrasound follow-up of carotid artery stenting performed with the dual-layer stent as compared to concurrent patients treated with other commercially available single-layer carotid stents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single centre, retrospective, nonrandomized study including 162 non-consecutive patients with 199 implanted carotid stents treated over a 7-year period was conducted. Patients with at least one ultrasound examination after treatment were included. Procedural and follow-up data for patients treated with the dual-layer stent implantation (83 stents) vs first-generation carotid stents implantations (116 stents) were compared. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 24.0 months (IQR 10-32 months) for dual-layer stents and 27.5 months (IQR 10.3-59 months) for single-layer stents. The rate of severe restenosis was significantly higher in the dual-layer stent group than in the single-layer group (13.3% [11/83] vs 3.4% [4/116], p = 0.01). Seven reinterventions were performed in 5 patients with dual-layer stents. The rate of reintervention was significantly higher compared to no reinterventions in single-layer stents (6% [5/83] vs 0% [0/116], p = 0.012). Patients with restenosis had significantly higher presence of dyslipidaemia (100% [12/12] vs 63.3% [95/150], p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world cohort of patients undergoing carotid artery stenting, the patients treated with low-profile dual-layer micromesh stent showed higher rates of restenosis and reinterventions compared to first-generation single-layer stents.
650    12
$a stenóza arteria carotis $x diagnostické zobrazování $x chirurgie $7 D016893
650    _2
$a stenóza $7 D003251
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a recidiva $7 D012008
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    12
$a stenty $x škodlivé účinky $7 D015607
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    _2
$a duplexní dopplerovská ultrasonografie $7 D018616
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Zeleňák, Kamil $u Clinic of Radiology, Comenius University's Jessenius Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Kollárova 2, 036 59, Martin, Slovakia. kamil.zelenak@uniba.sk $1 https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000000204162985
700    1_
$a Vorčák, Martin $u Clinic of Radiology, Comenius University's Jessenius Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Kollárova 2, 036 59, Martin, Slovakia
700    1_
$a Števík, Martin $u Clinic of Radiology, Comenius University's Jessenius Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Kollárova 2, 036 59, Martin, Slovakia
700    1_
$a Sýkorová, Martina $u Vaša Ambulancia, s. r. o., Prieložtek 1, 036 01, Martin, Slovakia
700    1_
$a Sivák, Jozef $u Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc, I. P. Pavlova 185/6, 77520, Olomouc, Czech Republic $u Middle-Slovak Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Cesta k nemocnici 1, 974 01, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia
700    1_
$a Rovňák, Marek $u Orthopedic Clinic, Comenius University's Jessenius Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Kollárova 2, 036 59, Martin, Slovakia
700    1_
$a Zapletalová, Jana $u Department of Medical Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc, Hněvotínská 976/3, 775 15, Olomouc, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Mužík, Juraj $u Department of Geotechnics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Žilina, Univerzitná, 8215/1, 010 26, Žilina, Slovakia
700    1_
$a Šinák, Igor $u Department of Vascular Surgery, University Hospital, Kollárova 2, 036 59, Martin, Slovakia
700    1_
$a Kurča, Egon $u Clinic of Neurology, University Hospital, Kollárova 2, 036 59, Martin, Slovakia
700    1_
$a Meyer, Lukas $u Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20251, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Fiehler, Jens $u Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20251, Hamburg, Germany
773    0_
$w MED00001056 $t Cardiovascular and interventional radiology $x 1432-086X $g Roč. 45, č. 9 (2022), s. 1257-1266
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35798859 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20221017 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20221031100923 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1854317 $s 1175815
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 45 $c 9 $d 1257-1266 $e 20220707 $i 1432-086X $m Cardiovascular and interventional radiology $n Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol $x MED00001056
GRA    __
$a 313011W875 $p European Regional Development Fund
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20221017

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...