Altered activity-based sleep measures in rhesus monkeys following cocaine self-administration and abstinence.

J. A. Cortes,Gustavo Gomez,Carol Ehnerd,K. Gurnsey,Jessica Nicolazzo,C. Bradberry,H. Jedema

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.04.014

IF: 4.852

2016-06-01

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

[A Single Center Large Cohort Study on Perioperative Complications of Carotid Endarterectomy of 547 Cases].

W J Sun,F L Gao,X C Qi,Y R Wang,D Q Peng,C Wu,X Jin,S D Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2018.29.011

2018-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To analyze the risk factors of perioperative complications within 30 days of carotid endarterectomy(CEA) in the treatment of carotid atherosclerosis stenosis(CAS) during 2011-2017, and to discuss the techniques for reducing the perioperative complication rates. Methods: From August 2011 to August 2017, 486 patients with CAS were retrospective included, and 61 of them underwent bilateral CEA, with a total of 547 cases of CEA included. Perioperative complications were collected within 30 days after operation, and the risk factors related to perioperative complications were analyzed by statistical analysis. Results: In total 547 cases, 12 cases had a postoperative stroke, while 1 case died. A total of 7 cases underwent cranial nerve injury, and 5 cases had an incision related complications. In chi-square test analysis, data suggested that there was a significant difference in the incidence of complications in patients with heart disease, preoperative neurological score difference, contralateral carotid serious stenosis or occlusion and intraoperative shunt in CCA/ICA technique application (P<0.05). In the multivariate Logistic regression, it suggested that poor preoperative neurological score and contralateral carotid serious stenosis or occlusion were independent risk factors for perioperative stroke and death. Conclusion: Our results showed that CEA is effective to prevent stroke and treat patients with CAS. Patients with poor preoperative neurological score and contralateral carotid serious stenosis or occlusion may increase the risk of postoperative stroke rates.
A Novel Endovascular Technique for Recanalization of Carotid Artery Chronic Total Occlusion: Staged Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting.

Dapeng Mo,Zijun He,Szeho Ma,Feng Gao,Ning Ma,Xiaochuan Huo,Raynald,Zhongrong Miao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.105131

IF: 2.677

2020-01-01

Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases

Abstract:AIM:Symptomatic carotid artery chronic total occlusion (SCACTO) can lead to neurocognitive function decline and carries a high risk or recurrent stroke. The treatment option is limited, endovascular intervention may be an alternative treatment but still controversial. To our knowledge, the staged carotid angioplasty and stenting (SCAS) did not previously reported. The purpose of this study was to report our experiences in this novel technique.METHODS:In 2017-2018, we attempted the staged carotid angioplasty and stenting (SCAS) approach in 13 patients who received SCACTO treatment. The SCAS approach involves two stages of intervention. The first stage involves initial recanalization and initial small-sized balloon angioplasty. The second stage, which is performed 4-6 weeks later, involves angioplasty and carotid stent placement.RESULTS:The success rate of SCAS was 76.9%. At the second stage, the lumen remained patent in all the patients. The mean spontaneous increase in lumen diameter after 4-6 weeks was 51.7%. The median length of the stent was 4.0 cm, and the median number of stents used was 1. One patient had a complication of dissection, with a complication rate of 7.6%.CONCLUSIONS:SCAS is a novel technique in the endovascular treatment of SCACTO. It is a feasible and safe approach that could reduce the complication rate and number of carotid stents needed.
Comparison of Trends and In-Hospital Outcomes of Concurrent Carotid Artery Revascularization and Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: The United States Experience 2004 to 2012

Dmitriy N Feldman,Rajesh V Swaminathan,Joshua D Geleris,Peter Okin,Robert M Minutello,Udhay Krishnan,Daniel J McCormick,Geoffrey Bergman,Harsimran Singh,S Chiu Wong,Luke K Kim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2016.11.032

2017-02-13

Abstract:Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare trends and outcomes of 3 approaches to carotid revascularization in the coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) population when performed during the same hospitalization. Background: The optimal approach to managing coexisting severe carotid and coronary disease remains controversial. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) are used to decrease the risk of stroke in patients with carotid disease undergoing CABG surgery. Methods: The authors conducted a serial, cross-sectional study with time trends of 3 revascularization groups during the same hospital admission: 1) combined CEA+CABG; 2) staged CEA+CABG; and 3) staged CAS+CABG from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database 2004 to 2012. The primary composite endpoints were in-hospital all-cause death, stroke, and death/stroke. Results: During the 9-year period, 22,501 concurrent carotid revascularizations and CABG surgeries during the same hospitalization were performed. Of these, 15,402 (68.4%) underwent combined CEA+CABG, 6,297 (28.0%) underwent staged CEA+CABG, and 802 (3.6%) underwent staged CAS+CABG. The overall rate of CEA+CABG decreased by 16.1% (ptrend = 0.03) from 2004 to 2012, whereas the rate of CAS+CABG did not significantly change during these years (ptrend = 0.10). The adjusted risk of death was greater, whereas risk of stroke was lower with both combined CEA+CABG (death odds ratio [OR]: 2.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08 to 3.97; p = 0.03; stroke OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.01; p = 0.06) and staged CEA+CABG (death OR: 2.40, 95% CI: 1.43 to 4.05; p = 0.001; stroke OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.80; p = 0.004) approaches compared with CAS+CABG. The adjusted risk of death or stroke was similar in the 3 groups. Conclusions: In patients with concomitant carotid and coronary disease undergoing combined revascularization, combined CEA+CABG is utilized most frequently, followed by staged CEA+CABG and staged CAS+CABG strategies. The staged CAS+CABG strategy was associated with lower risk of mortality, but higher risk of stroke. Future studies are needed to examine the risks/benefits of different carotid revascularization strategies for high-risk patients requiring concurrent CABG.
Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy in the Treatment of Carotid Stenosis

Zhen-Jie Liu,Wei-Guo Fu,Zhen-Ying Guo,Lai-Gen Shen,Zhen-Yu Shi,Jia-Hui Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2011.09.009

IF: 1.5

2012-01-01

Annals of Vascular Surgery

Abstract:BACKGROUND:To compare carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the treatment of carotid stenosis, including two recently published, large, prospective, randomized trials of these therapies.METHODS:We searched electronic databases for prospective, randomized, controlled trials involving carotid stenosis patients who underwent CAS or CEA, focusing on studies published in 1995 to 2010. Primary outcomes were death, stroke, and myocardial infarction.RESULTS:Thirteen trials containing 7,501 patients were analyzed, and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for CAS versus CEA. The risk of stroke or death within 30 days was higher after CAS than CEA (OR = 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-2.22), especially in previously symptomatic patients (OR = 1.89; 95% CI = 1.48-2.41). However, the risk of stroke or death within 1 year was comparable (OR = 1.12; 95% CI = 0.55-2.30). In a subgroup analysis, the risk of death and disabling stroke at 30 days did not differ significantly between CEA and CAS (death: OR = 1.43; 95% CI = 0.85-2.40; disabling stroke: OR = 1.28; 95% CI = 0.89-1.83), whereas the rate of nondisabling stroke within 30 days was much higher in the CAS group (OR = 1.87; 95% CI = 1.40-2.50). The risks of myocardial infarction within 30 days and 1 year were significantly less for CAS.CONCLUSION:CAS is inferior to CEA with regard to the incidence of stroke or death for periprocedural outcomes, especially in symptomatic patients. However, CAS was associated with a lower incidence of myocardial infarction. These procedures may be considered complementary rather than competing modes of therapy, each of which can be optimized with careful patient selection.
Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zhenjie Liu,Zhenyu Shi,Yuqi Wang,Bin Chen,Ting Zhu,Yi Si,Weiguo Fu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9862-8

IF: 3.282

2009-01-01

World Journal of Surgery

Abstract:Background The aim of this study was to evaluate and investigate the complications of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) by performing a meta-analysis based on prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods We performed a search of multiple electronic databases for RCTs containing patients with carotid stenosis who underwent CAS or CEA, focusing on studies published during 1995–2008. Results Eight trials with 2942 patients (1462 with CEA, 1480 with CAS) were analyzed. The pooled relative risk (RR) after CEA for stroke/death 30 days or 1 year was similar to that for CAS. Thirty-day RR = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.45–1.07, p = 0.10. One-year RR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.43–1.79, p = 0.72. The rates of death, disabling stroke, and nondisabling stroke at 30 days did not differ significantly between CEA and CAS in the subgroup analysis. Compared with CEA, the relative risk of disabling stroke/death within 30 days was not significantly less for CAS with embolic protection devices (EPDs). The relative risk of myocardial infarction within 30 days, myocardial infarction within 1 year, and cervical/peripheral nerve injury within 30 days were significantly higher after CEA; the relative risk of bradycardia/hypotension within 30 days and the 1-year restenosis rate were significantly higher after CAS. Conclusions CAS is equal to CEA with regard to the incidence of stroke/death. These procedures may be considered complementary rather than competing modes of therapy, each of which can be optimized with careful patient selection. CAS with an EPD may be appropriate in certain patients, and in general CAS should be considered cautiously in symptomatic patients.
Symmetric, Isotopic Blends of Poly(dimethylsiloxane)

G. Beaucage,S. K. Sukumaran,S. J. Clarson,M. Kent,D. W. Schaefer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/MA960723W

1996-12-16

Abstract:Neutron scattering experiments were performed on three molecular weight pairs of symmetric, isotopic blends of poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) of near-critical composition. Scattering data covering close to 3 decades in size were globally fit using the random phase approximation (RPA) and the Debye function for Gaussian polymer coils using the interaction parameter, χ, and statistical segment length, b, as free parameters. These wide q range fits differ from the standard, narrow q range RPA fits in that the power-law scaling regime and exponential decay regimes, related to b, are accounted for. Values for χ showed a well-behaved linear dependence on inverse temperature. Critical temperatures were estimated from these data. Direct observations of the miscibility limit, through neutron cloud points, were made in several cases which agree to some extent with the extrapolated critical points. Monotonic dependencies in temperature of the coil expansion factor, α, as calculated from the statistical segment length...
Trusts fail to protect staff from patient violence.

C. Duffin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.15.38.8.s23

2001-06-06

Nursing Standard

Abstract:MOST NHS trusts are failing nurses because they do not have proper policies in place for dealing with violent patients, a survey has shown.
Carotid Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Jie Wang,Xuesong Bai,Tao Wang,Adam A. Dmytriw,Aman B. Patel,Liqun Jiao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.122.038994

IF: 10.17

2022-06-24

Stroke

Abstract:To compare safety and efficacy between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in treating asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis based on results from randomized controlled trials. Randomized controlled trials comparing CAS and CEA in treating asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis were searched from databases of the EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane libraries. Two independent reviewers identified eligible studies, extracted relevant data, and used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess quality. Mantel-Haenszel method random-effects models were used to estimate odds ratio (OR) regarding perioperative risks between CAS and CEA. Kaplan-Meier curve data were extracted and analyzed through Exp[(O-E)/Var] fixed-effect models to calculate the Peto odds ratio (OR) regarding long-term outcomes. Sixteen articles from 7 randomized controlled trials were included, reporting relevant outcomes for 7230 asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis patients (CAS: n=3920; CEA: n=3198). Compared with the CEA group, CAS group had no difference in perioperative composite end point events including stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI; OR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.87–1.47]; P =0.37, I 2 =0%). Compared with CEA, CAS had a higher risk of any stroke during the perioperative period (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.16–2.24]; P =0.004, I 2 =0%) and an increased risk of nondisabling stroke (OR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.23–2.65]; P =0.003, I 2 =0%), but there was no significant difference in disabling stroke and death between groups (OR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.50–1.65]; P =0.76, I 2 =0%). For long-term outcomes, no difference regarding the composite outcome of any stroke, death, and myocardial infarction existed between CEA and CAS (Peto OR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.94–1.48]; P =0.14, I 2 =0%). Individual-level patient data would be important to verify the long-term outcome results. When treating asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, CAS has comparable perioperative and long-term composite outcomes compared with CEA. However, CAS may have a higher risk of any stroke and nondisabling stroke in the perioperative period. Download figure Download PowerPoint

peripheral vascular disease,clinical neurology
Safety and Efficacy of Simultaneous Bilateral Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting

Yongkun Li,Wenshan Sun,Qin Yin,Yinzhou Wang,Qiankun Cai,Wen Sun,Zhixin Huang,Wenhua Liu,Yunyun Xiong,Gelin Xu,Xinfeng Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-013-0920-1

2013-01-01

Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis

Abstract:In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of simultaneous bilateral carotid artery stenting (BCAS) compared with staged BCAS in patients with bilateral atherosclerotic carotid stenosis (BCS). From January 2004 to March 2012, 68 patients who underwent BCAS were identified from the Nanjing Stroke Registry Program. Of these patients, 42 (61.8 %) underwent simultaneous BCAS (simultaneous group), and 26 (38.2 %) underwent staged BCAS (staged group). We compared demographic data, major vascular risk factors, procedural parameters, and 30 day outcomes between the simultaneous and staged groups. No significant differences were detected in baseline data between the groups. Patients in the simultaneous group had a lower post-operative systolic pressure compared with the staged group (119.1 ± 16.1 vs. 130.2 ± 17.5 mmHg, P = 0.009). Technical success was 100 % of patients in the simultaneous group and 98.1 % in the staged group. Hemodynamic depression was observed in 57.4 % of procedures, with no significant difference between groups in the rate of HD. Four (5.9 %) patients had neurological complications within 30 days, including two cases of hyperperfusion syndrome in the simultaneous group, and two ischemic events in the staged group. There was no significant difference in the 30 day complication rate between the simultaneous and staged groups (4.8 vs. 7.7 %, P = 0.633). Simultaneous BCAS may be safe and feasible for most patients with BCS, with a similar 30 day complication rate to staged BCAS. Multicenter randomized control studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to further explore the safety and efficacy of simultaneous BCAS.
Long-term outcomes of synchronous carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass grafting versus solely carotid endarterectomy.

Shiyan Ren,Peng Liu,Guolin Ma,Fei Wang,Songyi Qian,Xueqiang Fan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5761/atcs.oa.12.01928

2012-01-01

Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Abstract:Objective: To compare the effect of combined carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with solely CEA. Methods: During a five-year period ending December 2009, 25 consecutive patients received concomitant CEA and CABG, whereas, 62 consecutive patients underwent only CEA. They were followed at the median for 64.5 months. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate the survival rate of patients in both groups. Results: There was no significant difference in terms of age, proportion of gender, risk factors of coronary artery disease and carotid artery stenosis. The degree of carotid artery stenosis was identical in both study groups. One patient in CEA/CABG group had 60% stenosis of carotid artery with ulcerative plaque. There was no early death in the short post-operative period. Restenosis was found on ultrasonography in 4 patients in the CEA/CABG group, and 12 patients in the CEA group; no statistical difference was found between both groups (P = 0.952). The intubation time, ICU stay, and hospital stay in CEA/CABG group were longer than in solely CEA group (P <0.001). The median duration of follow-up was 64.5 months (IQR 24-84 months). The survival rate was 88 %(22/25) in CEA/CABG group and 80.6 %(50/62) in CEA group, product-limit analysis showed that there was no significant difference in survival rates between two groups (P >0.05). Conclusion: concomitant carotid endarterectomy and CABG can be safely performed, it could prevent stroke and would not increase the overall risk of surgery.
Outcome Differences Between Carotid Artery Stenting (CAS) and Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA) in Postoperative Ventricular Arrhythmia, Neurological Complications, and In-Hospital Mortality

LaiTe Chen,Chen-Yang Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.2020.1768765

2020-01-01

Postgraduate Medicine

Abstract:ABSTRACT Objective: We study whether the carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) differ from each other in postoperative ventricular arrhythmia, along with neurological complications (perioperative stroke and transient ischemic attack), in-hospital mortality, and estimated medical cost. Methods: This study used data of patients with carotid artery stenosis from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2011–2014) from the United States of America. Based on the procedure that patients received, individuals were categorized into groups of CAS and CEA. Multilevel analyses were conducted to examine the difference in the following outcomes: postoperative ventricular arrhythmia, neurological complications, in-hospital mortality, and medical costs between CAS and CEA. The patient age, gender, race, Charlson Comorbidity Index, primary payer, emergency department service record, bed size of hospital, region of the hospital, and location of the hospital were adjusted in each model. In addition, preexisting cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) were adjusted for when predicting postoperative ventricular arrhythmia; postoperative CVDs were adjusted for in the model of in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 127,321 carotid artery stenosis hospitalizations were included in our analyses (n = 17,074 in CAS, n = 110,247 in CEA). Multivariate logistic regressions showed that compared with patients underwent CAS, those with CEA had a lower odds of postoperative ventricular arrhythmia (odds ratio [OR] = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.66–0.98]), less neurological complications (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: [0.51–0.59] in general; OR = 0.63, 95% CI: [0.57–0.69] in ischemic stroke; OR = 0.26, 95% CI: [0.20–0.32] in hemorrhagic stroke; and OR = 0.58, 95% CI: [0.47–0.71] in transient ischemic attack), and in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: [0.42–0.64]). Generalized linear model indicated patients undergoing CEA had lower medical cost (β = −4329.99, 95% CI: [−4552.61, −4107.38]) than patients undergoing CAS. Conclusions: In short-term outcomes, CEA was associated with a lower risk of postoperative ventricular arrhythmia, neurological complications, in-hospital mortality, and lower cost as compared with CAS.
Safety of Different Carotid Artery Revascularization Strategies in the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Population: Study Protocol for a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Yang Shen,Shasha Jin,Changpo Lin,Jianfei Shen,Zhenghua Hong,Song Xue,Daqiao Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-4451

IF: 3.616

2020-01-01

Annals of Translational Medicine

Abstract:Concomitant significant carotid artery occlusive diseases (CAOD) increase the risk of perioperative stroke and death in patients who undergo coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Although several surgical strategies can be used in the management of such patients, controversy still surrounds which is the best option for CABG patients with accompanying CAOD.Literature searches will be conducted covering articles published in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Embase between January 1989 and December 2019. Search results will be limited to articles published in English. Six surgical strategies using carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) with different timings (i.e., before, after, or combined with CABG) will be evaluated. Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies comparing these strategies will be included. The quality of studies will be critically appraised using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool or ROBINS-I tool. Since CEA and CAS have comparable effectiveness for the treatment of significant CAOD, we will integrate direct and indirect evidence using network meta-analysis (NMA) to create hierarchies of the six surgical strategies based on their perioperative safety. The primary outcomes will be the probability of perioperative stroke and the probability of perioperative death. Additionally, we will analyze the probability of perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) as a secondary outcome. Pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses will be performed for all related outcome measures. Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and network meta-regression will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.This NMA will summarize the direct and indirect evidence of perioperative safety with the aim of providing a ranking of the various surgical strategies. The results of this meta-analysis will provide useful information on optimal surgical management of CABG patients with concomitant significant CAOD.PROSPERO CRD42020162611.
Clinical efficacy of synchronous carotid endarterectomy combined with coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with severe carotid and coronary stenosis

杨阳,王涛,赵鸿,韩芸峰,于涛,张嘉,司雨,林国中,孙建军,杨军,张喆,凌云鹏,张鲁锋

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112050-20200219-00066

2020-01-01

Abstract:Objective:To evaluate the efficacy of synchronous carotid endarterectomy (CEA) combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with concomitant severe carotid and coronary stenosis.Methods:The clinical data of 30 patients who underwent CEA + CABG surgeries from September 2014 to September 2019 at Department of Neurosurgery and Department of Cardiac Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital were prospectively analyzed. We documented the perioperative complications and followed up the therapeutic effects in those cases.Results:Among 30 cases, brain stem infarction occurred perioperatively in 1 patient (3.3%), hoarseness occurred in 1 patient (3.3%) due to the stretching of laryngeal recurrent nerve, and MRI revealed new infarction lesions in 3 patients (10.0%), which were all asymptomatic and completely disappeared after 1-3 months. Twenty-one patients underwent head and neck angiography at 1-3 months post surgery, and no carotid restenosis or coronary artery bridge restenosis was reported. The median follow-up time of 30 patients was 44.7 (6.0-67.2) months. Respiratory failure due to lung infection occurred in 1 patient (3.3%) who died of multiple organ failure after 6 months. Among the remaining 29 survivors, 26 had been followed up for 1 year after surgery, and 25 underwent imaging follow-up showing no restenosis. Twenty-two patients had been followed up for 2 years. One patient was diagnosed as severe in-stent stenosis before synchronous operations, for whom the stent and carotid plaque were removed during CEA. At 18 months post operation, asymptomatic restenosis was reported in that patient who underwent carotid artery stenting (CAS) again, and no obvious stenosis was found at 2-year follow-up. One patient had been followed up for 5 years. No new cardio-cerebral vascular accidents occurred at the end of follow-up. Some patients showed improvement of cardiac function. By the end of the latest follow-up, the patient’s heart function was graded as class Ⅰ in 9 cases, class Ⅱ in 19 cases, and could not be evaluated because of respiratory failure and brain stem infarction in 2 cases.Conclusion:Synchronous CEA and CABG surgeries are safe and effective for patients with concomitant severe carotid and coronary stenosis.
Perioperative and follow-up results of Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy in Patients with carotid near-occlusion.

Dong Yan,Xiao Tang,Zhenyu Shi,Lixin Wang,Changpo Lin,Daqiao Guo,Weiguo Fu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2019.01.019

IF: 1.5

2019-01-01

Annals of Vascular Surgery

Abstract:Background: The aim was to compare perioperative and follow-up results of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with carotid near-occlusion (NO). Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted from January 2012 to June 2017 on consecutive patients with NO in our center. Perioperative complications, recurrence rate of ischemic stroke, restenosis rate, and mortality in follow-up were compared between the CAS group and CEA group. Results: 92 patients (CAS group, 54 and CEA group, 38) were identified. Perioperative (30-day) results were as follows: the rate of new lesions on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was higher in the CAS group (n = 31, 57.4%) than in the CEA group (n = 13, 34.2%) (P = 0.03); no differences were found in ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), cardiac infarction, and death rate between the two groups. Results from follow-up with a mean period of 28.3 (range from 3 to 60) months were as follows: the restenosis rate was lower in the CAS group (n 1, 1.8%) than the CEA group (n = 4, 10.5%) (P = 0.04); no differences were found in ischemic stroke, TIA, and the death rate between the two groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the five-year survival rate was 85.8% of the CAS group and 82.7% of the CEA group (P = 0.61); the five-year rate of freedom from target-lesion restenosis was 93.3% of the CAS group and 80.4% of the CEA group (P = 0.02). Conclusions: Both CAS and CEA can be used for carotid NO with the same rate of TIA/stroke and long-term survival. The rate of new lesions on DWI after CAS was higher than that in CEA in the perioperative period. CAS had a lower restenosis rate than CEA in follow-up, which might be more beneficial for remodeling of the distal internal carotid artery.
Systematic and Comprehensive Comparison of Incidence of Restenosis Between Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients with Atherosclerotic Carotid Stenosis

Wen-Qiang Xin,Meng-Qi Li,Ke Li,Qi-Feng Li,Yan Zhao,Wei-Han Wang,Yi-Kuan Gao,Hong-Yu Wang,Xin-Yu Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.01.118

Abstract:Objective: The purpose of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis to systematically compare the incidence rates of in-stent restenosis after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. Methods: We retrieved potential academic reports comparing restenosis between CEA and CAS from the MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library from the date of the first CEA (January 1951) to July 20, 2018. The references of the identified studies were carefully reviewed to ensure that all available reports were included in the present study. Results: Our meta-analysis included 27 studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 12 nonrandomized controlled trials) and 20,479 participants with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. A statistically significant difference was found in the cumulative incidence of restenosis >70% between CEA and CAS (risk difference, -0.033, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.054 to -0.013; P = 0.002). For the restenosis >70% outcomes, although CEA was relevant with a lower rate of restenosis than CAS within 6 months (odds ratio [OR], 0.495; 95% CI, 0.285-0.861; P = 0.013) and 1 year (OR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.483-0.811; P < 0.001), no statistically significant differences were found at 1.5 years (P = 0.210), 2 years (P = 0.123), 4 years (P = 0.124), 5 years (P = 0.327), or 10 years (P = 0.839). For the restenosis >50% outcomes, a significant difference was found in the rate of restenosis between the CEA and CAS groups within 1 year (OR, 0.317; 95% CI, 0.228-0.441; P < 0.001) but not at 1.5 years (P = 0.301), 2 years (P = 0.686), or 5 years (P = 0.920). No nominally significant effects were demonstrated with respect to the cumulative incidence of occlusion (P = 0.195) or the cumulative incidence of restenosis for symptomatic patients (P = 0.170) between CEA and CAS. Conclusions: Although CAS was preferred over CEA, regardless of restenosis >50% or >70% after revascularization within 1 year, no significant difference was observed with extension of the follow-up period to >1 year. CAS was not associated with a greater cumulative incidence of occlusion or the cumulative incidence of restenosis for symptomatic patients.
Role of Carotid Artery Stenting in Prevention of Stroke for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: Bayesian Cross-Design and Network Meta-Analyses

Jae Hyung Roh,Hyun Jun Cho,Jae Hwan Lee,Yongku Kim,Yeongwoo Park,Jae Hyeong Park,Hee Soon Park,Minsu Kim,Hyang Gon Jin,Yeji Cheon,In Whan Seong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2019.0125

Abstract:Background and objectives: There is insufficient evidence regarding the optimal treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Methods: Bayesian cross-design and network meta-analyses were performed to compare the safety and efficacy among carotid artery stenting (CAS), carotid endarterectomy (CEA), and medical treatment (MT). We identified 18 studies (4 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 14 nonrandomized, comparative studies [NRCSs]) comparing CAS with CEA, and 4 RCTs comparing CEA with MT from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. Results: The risk for periprocedural stroke tended to increase in CAS, compared to CEA (odds ratio [OR], 1.86; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.62-4.54). However, estimates for periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) were quite heterogeneous in RCTs and NRCSs. Despite a trend of decreased risk with CAS in RCTs (OR, 0.70; 95% CrI, 0.27-1.24), the risk was similar in NRCSs (OR, 1.02; 95% CrI, 0.87-1.18). In indirect comparisons of MT and CAS, MT showed a tendency to have a higher risk for the composite of periprocedural death, stroke, MI, or nonperiprocedural ipsilateral stroke (OR, 1.30; 95% CrI, 0.74-2.73). Analyses of study characteristics showed that CEA-versus-MT studies took place about 10-year earlier than CEA-versus-CAS studies. Conclusions: A similar risk for periprocedural MI between CEA and CAS in NRCSs suggested that concerns about periprocedural MI accompanied by CEA might not matter in real-world practice when preoperative evaluation and management are working. Maybe the benefits of CAS over MT have been overestimated considering advances in medical therapy within10-year gap between CEA-versus-MT and CEA-versus-CAS studies.
Comparison of the outcomes of concurrent versus staged TAVR combined with PCI in patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Xiangyu Zhang,Wei Geng,Shaohua Yan,Kaixuan Zhang,Qiumei Liu,Mengyu Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/mca.0000000000001373

2024-04-29

Coronary Artery Disease

Abstract:Background The optimal timing for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains uncertain. This research aims to evaluate the results of patients diagnosed with severe aortic valve stenosis and coronary artery disease who undergo either simultaneous or staged PCI therapy during TAVR procedures. Methods We retrieved all relevant studies from our self-constructed databases up to January 2, 2024, encompassing databases such as Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, and PubMed. Results A total of nine studies were included, and the results showed that both surgical modalities had good safety profiles in the early and long-term stages. For early endpoint events, the risk of all-cause mortality and major bleeding within 30 years was similar in the staged TAVR + PCI and the contemporaneous TAVR + PCI ( P > 0.05). Additionally, the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, acute kidney injury and pacemaker implantation within 30 days or perioperatively is similar ( P > 0.05). For long-term endpoint events, the risk of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke was similar in the two groups at ≥2 years ( P > 0.05). Conclusion In patients undergoing TAVR who required coronary revascularization, no significant differences were observed in the early and long-term outcomes between those receiving concurrent TAVR and PCI versus staged surgery.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
[Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Carotid Stenting: a Prospective Randomized Trial].

Chang-Wei Liu,Bao Liu,Wei Ye,Wei-Wei Wu,Yong-Jun Li,Yue-Hong Zheng,Ji-Dong Wu,Rong Zeng,Heng Guan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2009.04.009

2009-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the early and midterm outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) compared with carotid stenting (CAS) in patients with carotid artery stenosis.METHODS:A prospective randomized single-center clinical trail to compare with endarterectomy and stenting in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis of at least 50% and asymptomatic stenosis of at least 70%. From May 2004 to December 2006, there were 40 patients who agreed with the treatment were randomly assigned to undergo either CEA or CAS. The primary end point was any stroke or death within 30 d after treatment and the secondary end point was any stroke, myocardial infarction and any complications of the treatment, or death or ipsilateral stroke and carotid restenosis between 1 month and 18 months, and the cost-effectiveness of both groups were analyzed retrospectively as well.RESULTS:There were no significant differences of the characteristics in the two groups. Twenty cases in CEA group underwent 23 endarterectomies (3 cases had bilateral CEA, respectively), in which 9 carotid shunt (39.1%) and 12 patching (52.2%) were used. Twenty cases in CAS group underwent 23 stents (3 cases had bilateral CSA, respectively), in which 21 emboli-protection devices (91.3%) were used. There was no significant difference in 30 d neurological complications (4.3% vs. 8.7%), acute myocardial infarction (4.3% vs. 0), and wound hematoma (8.7% vs. 0) between CEA and CAS, respectively. There was no ipsilateral transient ischemic attack or carotid restenosis at 18 months in each group. The average cost of hospitalization was (16 450.95 +/- 6188.76) vs. (70 130.15 +/- 11 999.02) RMB in CEA and CAS, respectively, with significant difference (P < 0.01).CONCLUSION:The early and midterm outcomes are no significant difference between CEA and CAS, but in China, the cost of hospitalization in CAS is much higher than that of CEA.
Outcomes of simultaneous carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with concomitant carotid artery stenosis and coronary artery disease

陈彧,李伟浩,张小明,张学民,杨威,李伟,刘刚,张韬,陈生龙

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn113855-20200309-00169

2021-01-01

Abstract:Objective:To investigate the safety and efficacy of simultaneous carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with concomitant severe carotid and coronary artery disease.Methods:The clinical data of 19 patients with concomitant severe carotid artery stenosis and coronary artery disease undergoing simultaneous CEA and CABG at Peking University People′s Hospital from Jan 2011 to Dec 2019 were retrospectively analyzed.Results:The mean ages was 69 years old.The operation adopted the strategy of CEA first and then CABG. Conventional CEA with carotid arterial shunting was performed. The primary composite end points were perioperative cardiovascular and neurological adverse event rates, as well as the late follow-up outcomes. The technical success rate was 100%. There were no adverse cardiovascular events during the perioperative period. Ischemic stroke occurred in 2 patients. No early death was observed. Seventeen cases were successfully followed up for 1-103 months. One patient developed cerebral infarction after 8 months, one developed acute myocardial infarction 43 months after surgery. No cases suffered from carotid artery restenosis. The 5-year overall survival rate was 91%.Conclusions:Simultaneous CEA and CABG treatment for patients with concomitant carotid and coronary artery disease is safe with few perioperative cardiovascular events and no deaths.
Comparison of Endarterectomy and Stenting for High-risk Carotid Atherosclerotic Stenosis

Mo Dapeng,Zhang Jiayong,Zhang Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-6604.2009.03.025

2009-01-01

Abstract:Objective To compare the efficacy of carotid endarterectomy(CEA)and carotid artery stenting(CAS)for the treatment of high-risk atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis.Methods We retrospectively studied the surgical outcomes of 58 patients with high-risk atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis.Among the cases,32 received CEA and 26 underwent CAS.All of the patients were followed up with carotid ultrasonography,CTA or DSA in 30 days,6 months,and 1 year after the procedures,their neurological function was assessed meanwhile.Cumulative incidence of death,stroke,or myocardial infarction within 30 days after the surgical intervention and death or ipsilateral stroke events between 30 days and 1 year were set as the primary endpoint of the study.And the secondary endpoints were the CEA or CAS-correlated complications or severe restenosis within 1 year after the treatment.The outcomes of the two groups were compared.Results The primary endpoint occurred in 3 patients in the CEA group(9.4%)and 4 in the CAS group(15.4%)(χ2=0.086,P= 0.769).And the secondary endpoint was found in 4 of the CEA group(12.5%)and 4 of the CAS group(15.4%)respectively(χ2=0.000,P=1.000).Conclusions For the patients with high-risk carotid artery stenosis and coexisting conditions,CEA is as safe and effective as CAS.

Altered activity-based sleep measures in rhesus monkeys following cocaine self-administration and abstinence.

[A Single Center Large Cohort Study on Perioperative Complications of Carotid Endarterectomy of 547 Cases].

A Novel Endovascular Technique for Recanalization of Carotid Artery Chronic Total Occlusion: Staged Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting.

Comparison of Trends and In-Hospital Outcomes of Concurrent Carotid Artery Revascularization and Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: The United States Experience 2004 to 2012

Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy in the Treatment of Carotid Stenosis

Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Symmetric, Isotopic Blends of Poly(dimethylsiloxane)

Trusts fail to protect staff from patient violence.

Carotid Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Safety and Efficacy of Simultaneous Bilateral Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting

Long-term outcomes of synchronous carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass grafting versus solely carotid endarterectomy.

Outcome Differences Between Carotid Artery Stenting (CAS) and Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA) in Postoperative Ventricular Arrhythmia, Neurological Complications, and In-Hospital Mortality

Safety of Different Carotid Artery Revascularization Strategies in the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Population: Study Protocol for a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Clinical efficacy of synchronous carotid endarterectomy combined with coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with severe carotid and coronary stenosis

Perioperative and follow-up results of Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy in Patients with carotid near-occlusion.

Systematic and Comprehensive Comparison of Incidence of Restenosis Between Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients with Atherosclerotic Carotid Stenosis

Role of Carotid Artery Stenting in Prevention of Stroke for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: Bayesian Cross-Design and Network Meta-Analyses

Comparison of the outcomes of concurrent versus staged TAVR combined with PCI in patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

[Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Carotid Stenting: a Prospective Randomized Trial].

Outcomes of simultaneous carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with concomitant carotid artery stenosis and coronary artery disease

Comparison of Endarterectomy and Stenting for High-risk Carotid Atherosclerotic Stenosis