Carotid artery stenting: do procedural complications relate to the side intervened upon?: results from the Carotid Artery Stent (CAS)-Registry of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausärzte (ALKK).

OBJECTIVES: To determine the influence of the side intervened upon on outcomes during carotid artery stenting (CAS). BACKGROUND: Anatomic and technical aspects may influence the results of CAS. The value of the side intervened upon has not been analyzed yet. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Carotid Artery Stent (CAS)-Registry. RESULTS: A total of 3,165 CAS procedures, 1,613 (51%) at the left and 1,552 (49%) at the right carotid artery were included. There was a higher proportion of patients treated for symptomatic stenoses when CAS was performed at the left carotid artery (50.1% versus 45.8%, P = 0.016) and more patients already had prior carotid endarterectomy (8.5% versus 5.8%, P = 0.003). Interventions at the left side took 3 min longer than interventions at the right side (46.6 +/- 24.3 versus 43.8 +/- 23.6, P = 0.003). In patients treated at the left carotid artery amaurosis fugax (0.7% versus 0.1%, P = 0.005), ipsilateral stroke (3.1% versus 1.8%, P = 0.017), and the primary endpoint of in-hospital death or stroke (4.1% versus 2.3%, P = 0.005) occurred significantly more often. Even after adjusting for confounding parameters, CAS procedures performed at the left carotid arteries remained an independent predictor of death or stroke (OR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.15-2.72, P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: In current clinical practice, CAS is performed frequently at the right carotid artery as at the left carotid artery. CAS interventions have a higher in-hospital complication rate if performed at the left carotid artery. Technical improvements might help to overcome this situation.

Comparison of in-hospital outcomes of patients with versus without previous carotid endarterectomy undergoing carotid stenting (from the German ALKK CAS Registry).

Repeat carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for recurrent stenosis remains a challenging treatment option associated with high morbidity and mortality. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an attractive alternative management option for these patients. However, data about the effectiveness and safety of CAS in a large number of unselected patients are less known. We evaluated 3,070 patients who underwent CAS enrolled in a German registry from 1996 to 2006 at 31 sites. We compared clinical and angiographic features and in-hospital outcomes of patients with and without previous CEA who underwent CAS. Of 3,070 patients in the registry, 223 (7.3%) underwent CAS for restenosis after previous CEA. Median age was similar in patients with and without previous CEA (70 years, interquartile range 64 to 76 vs 71 years, interquartile range 65 to 76). Ipsilateral neurologic symptoms occurred in approximately 1/2 the patients in both groups. Other co-morbid conditions and angiographic or procedural factors did not differ between the 2 groups. In-hospital events including death (0% vs 0.4%), ipsilateral major stroke (1.4% vs 1.5%), death or major ipsilateral stroke (1.4% vs 1.7%), ipsilateral transient ischemic attack (1.9% vs 2.8%), myocardial infarction (0.4% vs 0.1%), and reintervention (0.7% vs 0.4%) were all low and not significantly different between those with and without previous CEA (p >0.05 for all comparisons). In conclusion, our data for a large number of patients who underwent CAS in a recent contemporary community-based practice attests to the low risk of periprocedural events in patients with recurrent stenosis after previous CEA. This low risk along with the less invasive nature of the procedure should make CAS an attractive and perhaps preferred option for the treatment of these patients.

Improved clinical outcome after intracoronary administration of bone-marrow-derived progenitor cells in acute myocardial infarction: final 1-year results of the REPAIR-AMI trial.

AIMS: To investigate the clinical outcome after intracoronary administration of autologous progenitor cells in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre trial design, we randomized 204 patients with successfully reperfused AMI to receive intracoronary infusion of bone-marrow-derived progenitor cells (BMCs) or placebo medium into the infarct artery 3-7 days after successful infarct reperfusion therapy. At 12 months, the pre-specified cumulative endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or necessity for revascularization was significantly reduced in the BMC group compared with placebo (P=0.009). Likewise, the combined endpoint death, recurrence of myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization for heart failure was significantly (P=0.006) reduced in patients receiving intracoronary BMC administration. Intracoronary administration of BMC remained a significant predictor of a favourable clinical outcome by Cox regression analysis, adjusting for classical predictors of poor outcome after AMI. CONCLUSION: Intracoronary administration of BMCs is associated with a significant reduction of the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events after AMI. Large-scale studies are warranted to confirm the effects of BMC administration on mortality and morbidity in patients with AMIs.