This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Correction (v40,pe477) All Versions of this Article: 40/3/841    most recent STROKEAHA.108.534289v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jansen, O. Articles by Brückmann, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jansen, O. Articles by Brückmann, H. Related Collections Carotid Stenosis Angioplasty and Stenting

(Stroke. 2009;40:841.)
© 2009 American Heart Association, Inc.

Original Contributions

Protection or Nonprotection in Carotid Stent Angioplasty

The Influence of Interventional Techniques on Outcome Data From the SPACE Trial

Olav Jansen, PhD; Jens Fiehler, PhD; Marius Hartmann, PhD Hartmut Brückmann, PhD

From the University of Kiel, Germany.

Correspondence to Olav Jansen, University of Kiel, Arnold-Heller Str.3, Kiel, D-24105 Germany. E-mail o.jansen{at}neurorad.uni-kiel.de

Background and Purpose— The use of protection devices (PDs) and stents with different cell designs in carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a subject of controversy, and no data on their benefit are available from independently controlled multi-center studies.

Methods— We analyzed data from the prospective randomized SPACE trial, which included 563 patients randomized to CAS and treated per protocol. A total of 145 patients were treated with a PD and 418 without. Of the patients, 436 were treated with an open cell stent and 127 with a closed cell stent. Use of PDs and choice of device was chosen at the individual discretion of the interventionalist.

Results— The outcome event (OE) of the analysis (ipsilateral stroke or ipsilateral stroke death within 30 days) was reached in 26/418 patients (6.2%, 95% CI: 4.1 to 9.0%) in the nonprotection group and in 12/145 (8.3%, 95% CI: 4.3 to 14.0%) patients in the protection group (P=0.40). The OE rate was significantly lower in patients treated with a closed cell stent (5.6% [95% CI: 3.7 to 8.2%]) than in those treated with an open cell stent.(11.0%, 95% CI: 6.2 to 17.8%; P=0.029). Predilatation showed a tendency to but no significant reduction of OE rate. Overall, 49% of all OEs occurred directly periinterventionally, 10% during the navigation procedure and 41% postinterventionally, including 10% of hyperperfusion syndromes. Time point of the event was not influenced by the use of a PD.

Conclusions— This secondary analysis of data from the SPACE trial does not support the need for a PD in CAS. Stent design seems to have an impact on the OE rate. Our analysis demonstrates that the choice of the interventional material may have an impact on the periprocedural complication rate in CAS and that the development of more specific stent systems for the treatment of carotid stenosis may reduce the complication rate significantly.

Key Words: stents • carotid artery • protection • cell design