Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
J Vasc Surg ; 76(2): 466-473.e1, 2022 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35381327

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a carotid stenting technique that utilizes reversal of cerebral arterial flow to confer cerebral protection. Although carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the standard for treatment of symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the search for the optimal minimally invasive option for the high-risk surgical patient continues. The goal of the current study is to evaluate the 1-year safety and efficacy of TCAR in a prospective clinical trial. METHODS: ROADSTER 2 is a prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, post-approval registry for patients undergoing TCAR. All patients were considered high risk for CEA and underwent independent neurological assessments preoperatively, postoperatively, and had long-term clinical follow-up. The primary end point was incidence of ipsilateral stroke after treatment with the ENROUTE Transcarotid Stent System. Secondary end points included individual/composite rates of stroke, death, and perioperative myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Between June 2016 and November 2018, 155 patients at 21 centers in the United States and one in the European Union were enrolled and represented a subset of the overall trial. Asymptomatic (n = 119; 77%) and symptomatic patients (n = 36; 23%) with high-risk anatomic (ie, high lesion, restenosis, radiation injury; 43%), physiologic (32%), or combined factors (25%) were enrolled. No patient suffered a perioperative myocardial infarction or stroke. Over the year, no patient had an ipsilateral stroke, but four patients died (2.6%), all from non-neurological causes. Additionally, a technical success rate of 98.7% with a low cranial nerve deficit rate of 1.3% was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with high risk factors, TCAR yields high technical success with a low stroke and death rate at 1 year. Further comparative studies with CEA are warranted.


Assuntos
Estenose das Carótidas , Procedimentos Endovasculares , Infarto do Miocárdio , Acidente Vascular Cerebral , Artérias , Estenose das Carótidas/complicações , Estenose das Carótidas/diagnóstico por imagem , Estenose das Carótidas/cirurgia , Procedimentos Endovasculares/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Infarto do Miocárdio/etiologia , Estudos Prospectivos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Stents/efeitos adversos , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/epidemiologia , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos
2.
J Vasc Surg ; 48(2): 480-6, 2008 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18644494

RESUMO

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) appointed a committee of experts to formulate evidence-based clinical guidelines for the management of carotid stenosis. In formulating clinical practice recommendations, the committee used systematic reviews to summarize the best available evidence and the GRADE scheme to grade the strength of recommendations (GRADE 1 for strong recommendations; GRADE 2 for weak recommendations) and rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, and very low quality). In symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with low-grade carotid stenosis (<50% in symptomatic and <60% in asymptomatic patients), we recommend optimal medical therapy rather than revascularization (GRADE 1 recommendation, high quality evidence). In symptomatic patients with moderate to severe carotid stenosis (more than 50%), we recommend carotid endarterectomy plus optimal medical therapy (GRADE 1 recommendation, high quality evidence). In symptomatic patients with moderate to severe carotid stenosis (>/=50%) and high perioperative risk, we suggest carotid artery stenting as a potential alternative to carotid endarterectomy (GRADE 2 recommendation, low quality evidence). In asymptomatic patients with moderate to severe carotid stenosis (>/=60%), we recommend carotid endarterectomy plus medical management as long as the perioperative risk is low (GRADE 1 recommendation, high quality evidence). We recommend against carotid artery stenting for asymptomatic patients with moderate to severe (>/=60%) carotid artery stenosis (GRADE 1 recommendation, low quality evidence). A possible exception includes patients with >/=80% carotid artery stenosis and high anatomic risk for carotid endarterectomy.


Assuntos
Aterosclerose/complicações , Aterosclerose/terapia , Estenose das Carótidas/etiologia , Estenose das Carótidas/terapia , Angiografia/métodos , Angioplastia/métodos , Aterosclerose/mortalidade , Estenose das Carótidas/diagnóstico , Estenose das Carótidas/mortalidade , Endarterectomia das Carótidas/métodos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Seleção de Pacientes , Inibidores da Agregação Plaquetária/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Medição de Risco , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Sociedades Médicas , Stents , Análise de Sobrevida , Terapia Trombolítica/métodos , Resultado do Tratamento , Ultrassonografia Doppler Dupla , Estados Unidos
4.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv ; 70(2): 316-23, 2007 Aug 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17630678

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether physicians with varying carotid stent experience would obtain safety and efficacy outcomes as good as those from the pivotal SAPPHIRE trial following participation in a comprehensive carotid stent training program. BACKGROUND: This study was performed as a condition of approval study for the PRECISE(R) Nitinol Stent and the ANGIOGUARD XP Emboli Capture Guidewire. METHODS: Patients at high surgical risk who were either symptomatic with >or=50% stenosis or asymptomatic with >or=80% stenosis of the common or internal carotid artery received carotid artery stenting with distal emboli protection using the PRECISE Nitinol Stent and the ANGIOGUARD XP Emboli Capture Guidewire. Physicians were qualified based on either prior experience in carotid stenting with the ANGIOGUARD XP Emboli Capture Guidewire or following participation in a formal training program. The primary endpoint of major adverse events (MAE) at 30 days (death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke) was tested for non-inferiority compared with an objective performance criterion (OPC) of 6.3% established from the stent cohort of the SAPPHIRE trial. RESULTS: The 30-day MAE rate was 5.0%, meeting the criteria for non-inferiority to the prespecified OPC (95% CI [3.9%, 6.2%] P<0.001). Asymptomatic patients (N=1,158, 78.2%) had similar outcomes to the overall results (MAE 4.7%). Outcomes were similar across levels of physician experience, carotid stent volume, geographic location, presence/absence of training program. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing a comprehensive training program, carotid artery stenting by operators with differing experience in a variety of practice settings yielded safety and efficacy outcomes similar to those reported in the SAPPHIRE trial.


Assuntos
Angioplastia/educação , Doenças Cardiovasculares/etiologia , Estenose das Carótidas/cirurgia , Competência Clínica , Educação Médica , Embolia/prevenção & controle , Vigilância de Produtos Comercializados , Stents , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Ligas , Angioplastia/efeitos adversos , Angioplastia/instrumentação , Doenças Cardiovasculares/mortalidade , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Estenose das Carótidas/mortalidade , Aprovação de Equipamentos , Embolia/complicações , Embolia/etiologia , Embolia/mortalidade , Desenho de Equipamento , Feminino , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Desenho de Prótese , Sistema de Registros , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA