This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 36/2/367    most recent 01.STR.0000152357.82843.9fv1 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 HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gröschel, K. Articles by Kastrup, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gröschel, K. Articles by Kastrup, A. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Angioplasty Related Collections Carotid endarterectomy Angioplasty and Stenting

(Stroke. 2005;36:367.)
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.

Comments, Opinions, and Reviews

Systematic Review of Early Recurrent Stenosis After Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting

From the Department of General Neurology (K.G., A.R., J.B.S., A.K.), University of Tübingen, Germany; the Department of Neurology (K.G., A.K.), University of Jena, Germany; and the Department of Neuroradiology (U.E.), University of Tübingen, Germany.

Correspondence to Dr Andreas Kastrup, Department of Neurology, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Erlanger Allee 101, 07747 Jena, Germany. E-mail andreas.kastrup{at}uni-jena.de

Background and Purpose— Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has emerged as a potential alternative to endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of carotid artery disease. Aside from the periprocedural complication rates, the benefits of CAS will be affected by the incidence of recurrent carotid stenosis.

Methods— We conducted a systematic analysis of all peer-reviewed studies reporting on the rate of restenosis (50%) after CAS based on duplex ultrasound or angiography that were published between January 1990 and July 2004. We identified 34 studies that reported on a total of 4185 patients with a follow-up of 3814 arteries over a median of 13 months (range, 6 to 31 months). The ultrasound criteria and the lower thresholds for defining a recurrent stenosis were very heterogeneous.

Results— The cumulative restenosis rates after 1 and 2 years were 6% and 7.5% in those studies, which used a lower restenosis threshold 50% to 70% and 4% in the first 2 years after CAS in those studies, which used a lower restenosis threshold >70% to 80%.

Conclusions— In reviewing the current literature, the early restenosis rates after CAS compare well with those reported for CEA. However, this analysis of the peer-reviewed literature also indicates that the early restenosis rates after CAS might be higher than previously suggested in observational surveys. Therefore, an active follow-up of all stented arteries seems to be warranted. Moreover, the bulk of endovascular data are derived from small studies with short follow-up periods so that the long-term durability of CAS still needs to be established in large trials. Ideally, these studies should use a clear and uniform definition of restenosis and identical follow-up schedules.

Key Words: angioplasty • carotid arteries • outcome • stenosis • stents

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Groschel, S. Schnaudigel, S. M. Pilgram, K. Wasser, and A. Kastrup A Systematic Review on Outcome After Stenting for Intracranial Atherosclerosis Stroke, May 1, 2009; 40(5): e340 - e347. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Denes, Z. Bori, E. Csonka, L. Entz, and Z. Nagy Reverse Regulation of Endothelial Cells and Myointimal Hyperplasia on Cell Proliferation by a Heatshock Protein-Coinducer After Hypoxia Stroke, March 1, 2008; 39(3): 1022 - 1024. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Pelz, T. Andersson, M. Soderman, P. Lylyk, and M. Negoro Advances in Interventional Neuroradiology 2005 Stroke, February 1, 2006; 37(2): 309 - 311. [Full Text] [PDF]