This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 37/5/1221    most recent 01.STR.0000217435.21051.60v1 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 Cao, P. Articles by Giordano, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cao, P. Articles by Giordano, G. Related Collections Cerebrovascular disease/stroke Carotid Stenosis Carotid endarterectomy Angioplasty and Stenting

(Stroke. 2006;37:1221.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.

Original Contributions

Outcome of Carotid Stenting Versus Endarterectomy

A Case-Control Study

Piergiorgio Cao, MD, FRCS; Paola De Rango, MD; Fabio Verzini, MD; Agostino Maselli, MD; Lucia Norgiolini, MD Giuseppe Giordano, MD

From the Endovascular Unit, Departments of Vascular Surgery and Radiology, University of Perugia and Azienda Ospedaliera di Perugia, Perugia, Italy.

Correspondence to Prof Piergiorgio Cao, FRCS, Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of Perugia, Azienda Ospedaliera di Perugia, Ospedale R. Silvestrini, 06132 Perugia, Italy. E-mail pcao{at}unipg.it

Background and Purpose— To compare perioperative and midterm results of carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in similar cohorts of patients, a retrospectively matched case-control study was performed.

Methods— Three hundred and one case subjects undergoing CAS with cerebral protection and 301 concurrent matched-controls undergoing CEA were examined. Matching was by sex, age (±2 years), symptoms and coronary disease.

Results— The 30-day disabling stroke/death rate was 2.6% in the CAS group versus 1.3% in the CEA group (odds ratio [OR] 2; 95% CI, 0.54 to 9.35; P=0.4). CAS patients had a significantly higher risk of periprocedural stroke (7.9% versus 2.3%; OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.7 to 18; P=0.001) than CEA patients. However, there was a decreasing trend in 30-day neurological event rates for the last 201 CAS matched cases: 5.4% versus 1.9% (OR 2.8; 95% CI, 0.8 to 10.2; P=0.1). Fifty percent of CAS disabling strokes occurred during cannulation of epiaortic vessels before placement of cerebral protection. Conditional multivariate analysis revealed CAS as a predictor of 30-day stroke (hazard ratios [HR] 3.9; 95% CI, 1.6 to 9.4; P=0.002) but not of 30-day disabling stroke/death (HR 3.6; 95% CI, 0.93 to 13.9; P=0.06). Restenosis free intervals at 36 months were 93.6% versus 92.1% for CAS and CEA, respectively, (P=0.6).

Conclusions— When comparing CAS with CEA, the risk of any neurological events is still higher, particularly during catheterism and ballooning. The effect of the learning curve related to technical expertise and patient selection may influence the outcome of CAS versus CEA. In the midterm the restenosis rate of CAS compares favorably to CEA.

Key Words: angioplasty • carotid artery • carotid endarterectomy • stent

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. Verzini, P. De Rango, G. Parlani, G. Panuccio, and P. Cao Carotid Artery Stenting: Technical Issues and Role of Operators' Experience Perspectives in Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, September 1, 2008; 20(3): 247 - 257. [Abstract] [PDF]