Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation
Purpose The aim of this study was to report intermediate-term results of duplex ultrasound follow-up of carotid artery stenting performed with the dual-layer stent as compared to concurrent patients treated with other commercially available single-layer carotid stents. Materials and Methods A single...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cardiovascular and interventional radiology 2022-09, Vol.45 (9), p.1257-1266 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1266 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 1257 |
container_title | Cardiovascular and interventional radiology |
container_volume | 45 |
creator | Sýkora, Ján Zeleňák, Kamil Vorčák, Martin Števík, Martin Sýkorová, Martina Sivák, Jozef Rovňák, Marek Zapletalová, Jana Mužík, Juraj Šinák, Igor Kurča, Egon Meyer, Lukas Fiehler, Jens |
description | Purpose
The aim of this study was to report intermediate-term results of duplex ultrasound follow-up of carotid artery stenting performed with the dual-layer stent as compared to concurrent patients treated with other commercially available single-layer carotid stents.
Materials and Methods
A single centre, retrospective, nonrandomized study including 162 non-consecutive patients with 199 implanted carotid stents treated over a 7-year period was conducted. Patients with at least one ultrasound examination after treatment were included. Procedural and follow-up data for patients treated with the dual-layer stent implantation (83 stents) vs first-generation carotid stents implantations (116 stents) were compared.
Results
The median follow-up time was 24.0 months (IQR 10–32 months) for dual-layer stents and 27.5 months (IQR 10.3–59 months) for single-layer stents. The rate of severe restenosis was significantly higher in the dual-layer stent group than in the single-layer group (13.3% [11/83] vs 3.4% [4/116],
p
= 0.01). Seven reinterventions were performed in 5 patients with dual-layer stents. The rate of reintervention was significantly higher compared to no reinterventions in single-layer stents (6% [5/83] vs 0% [0/116],
p
= 0.012). Patients with restenosis had significantly higher presence of dyslipidaemia (100% [12/12] vs 63.3% [95/150],
p
= 0.009).
Conclusions
In this real-world cohort of patients undergoing carotid artery stenting, the patients treated with low-profile dual-layer micromesh stent showed higher rates of restenosis and reinterventions compared to first-generation single-layer stents. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00270-022-03200-4 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2687719819</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2711632245</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-cab9ff36b5022023ea27bf98a1446d68844d4e42d117820cfc2fb65fe7691b6a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kdFLHDEQxoNU8Gr9B3wK9KUvWzPZbJLtm1ytCgfCnYJvIbubSOxecs3sSv3vGz1B6INPw8z8vuEbPkJOgX0HxtQZMsYVqxjnFas5Y5U4IAsQdWm1vP9EFgyUqKBp4Ih8RnxkDBrNmwWJy7Td2RwwRZo8XTucXEwYkK4D_qYh0k2ID6OrVvbZZfrkMs5If852fJssbU5TGOim6Cb8Qc_Lcje6v_RunLLFNMeBXjzZcbZTSPELOfR2RHfyVo_J3a-L2-VVtbq5vF6er6pegJ6q3nat97XsmvIR47WzXHW-1RaEkIPUWohBOMEHAKU5633PfScb75RsoZO2Pibf9nd3Of2Zy1NmG7B342ijSzMaLrVS0GpoC_r1P_QxzTkWd4YrAFlzLppC8T3V54SYnTe7HLY2Pxtg5iUCs4_AFMPmNQIjiqjei7DA8cHl99MfqP4Bg6yJNQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2711632245</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Sýkora, Ján ; Zeleňák, Kamil ; Vorčák, Martin ; Števík, Martin ; Sýkorová, Martina ; Sivák, Jozef ; Rovňák, Marek ; Zapletalová, Jana ; Mužík, Juraj ; Šinák, Igor ; Kurča, Egon ; Meyer, Lukas ; Fiehler, Jens</creator><creatorcontrib>Sýkora, Ján ; Zeleňák, Kamil ; Vorčák, Martin ; Števík, Martin ; Sýkorová, Martina ; Sivák, Jozef ; Rovňák, Marek ; Zapletalová, Jana ; Mužík, Juraj ; Šinák, Igor ; Kurča, Egon ; Meyer, Lukas ; Fiehler, Jens</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
The aim of this study was to report intermediate-term results of duplex ultrasound follow-up of carotid artery stenting performed with the dual-layer stent as compared to concurrent patients treated with other commercially available single-layer carotid stents.
Materials and Methods
A single centre, retrospective, nonrandomized study including 162 non-consecutive patients with 199 implanted carotid stents treated over a 7-year period was conducted. Patients with at least one ultrasound examination after treatment were included. Procedural and follow-up data for patients treated with the dual-layer stent implantation (83 stents) vs first-generation carotid stents implantations (116 stents) were compared.
Results
The median follow-up time was 24.0 months (IQR 10–32 months) for dual-layer stents and 27.5 months (IQR 10.3–59 months) for single-layer stents. The rate of severe restenosis was significantly higher in the dual-layer stent group than in the single-layer group (13.3% [11/83] vs 3.4% [4/116],
p
= 0.01). Seven reinterventions were performed in 5 patients with dual-layer stents. The rate of reintervention was significantly higher compared to no reinterventions in single-layer stents (6% [5/83] vs 0% [0/116],
p
= 0.012). Patients with restenosis had significantly higher presence of dyslipidaemia (100% [12/12] vs 63.3% [95/150],
p
= 0.009).
Conclusions
In this real-world cohort of patients undergoing carotid artery stenting, the patients treated with low-profile dual-layer micromesh stent showed higher rates of restenosis and reinterventions compared to first-generation single-layer stents.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0174-1551</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-086X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00270-022-03200-4</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Arterial Interventions ; Cardiology ; Carotid arteries ; Carotid artery ; Clinical Investigation ; Dyslipidemia ; Imaging ; Implants ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Nuclear Medicine ; Patients ; Radiology ; Restenosis ; Stents ; Surgical implants ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2022-09, Vol.45 (9), p.1257-1266</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2022</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2022.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-cab9ff36b5022023ea27bf98a1446d68844d4e42d117820cfc2fb65fe7691b6a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-cab9ff36b5022023ea27bf98a1446d68844d4e42d117820cfc2fb65fe7691b6a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0416-2985</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00270-022-03200-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00270-022-03200-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sýkora, Ján</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeleňák, Kamil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vorčák, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Števík, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sýkorová, Martina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sivák, Jozef</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rovňák, Marek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zapletalová, Jana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mužík, Juraj</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Šinák, Igor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kurča, Egon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyer, Lukas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fiehler, Jens</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation</title><title>Cardiovascular and interventional radiology</title><addtitle>Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol</addtitle><description>Purpose
The aim of this study was to report intermediate-term results of duplex ultrasound follow-up of carotid artery stenting performed with the dual-layer stent as compared to concurrent patients treated with other commercially available single-layer carotid stents.
Materials and Methods
A single centre, retrospective, nonrandomized study including 162 non-consecutive patients with 199 implanted carotid stents treated over a 7-year period was conducted. Patients with at least one ultrasound examination after treatment were included. Procedural and follow-up data for patients treated with the dual-layer stent implantation (83 stents) vs first-generation carotid stents implantations (116 stents) were compared.
Results
The median follow-up time was 24.0 months (IQR 10–32 months) for dual-layer stents and 27.5 months (IQR 10.3–59 months) for single-layer stents. The rate of severe restenosis was significantly higher in the dual-layer stent group than in the single-layer group (13.3% [11/83] vs 3.4% [4/116],
p
= 0.01). Seven reinterventions were performed in 5 patients with dual-layer stents. The rate of reintervention was significantly higher compared to no reinterventions in single-layer stents (6% [5/83] vs 0% [0/116],
p
= 0.012). Patients with restenosis had significantly higher presence of dyslipidaemia (100% [12/12] vs 63.3% [95/150],
p
= 0.009).
Conclusions
In this real-world cohort of patients undergoing carotid artery stenting, the patients treated with low-profile dual-layer micromesh stent showed higher rates of restenosis and reinterventions compared to first-generation single-layer stents.</description><subject>Arterial Interventions</subject><subject>Cardiology</subject><subject>Carotid arteries</subject><subject>Carotid artery</subject><subject>Clinical Investigation</subject><subject>Dyslipidemia</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Implants</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Nuclear Medicine</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Restenosis</subject><subject>Stents</subject><subject>Surgical implants</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>0174-1551</issn><issn>1432-086X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kdFLHDEQxoNU8Gr9B3wK9KUvWzPZbJLtm1ytCgfCnYJvIbubSOxecs3sSv3vGz1B6INPw8z8vuEbPkJOgX0HxtQZMsYVqxjnFas5Y5U4IAsQdWm1vP9EFgyUqKBp4Ih8RnxkDBrNmwWJy7Td2RwwRZo8XTucXEwYkK4D_qYh0k2ID6OrVvbZZfrkMs5If852fJssbU5TGOim6Cb8Qc_Lcje6v_RunLLFNMeBXjzZcbZTSPELOfR2RHfyVo_J3a-L2-VVtbq5vF6er6pegJ6q3nat97XsmvIR47WzXHW-1RaEkIPUWohBOMEHAKU5633PfScb75RsoZO2Pibf9nd3Of2Zy1NmG7B342ijSzMaLrVS0GpoC_r1P_QxzTkWd4YrAFlzLppC8T3V54SYnTe7HLY2Pxtg5iUCs4_AFMPmNQIjiqjei7DA8cHl99MfqP4Bg6yJNQ</recordid><startdate>20220901</startdate><enddate>20220901</enddate><creator>Sýkora, Ján</creator><creator>Zeleňák, Kamil</creator><creator>Vorčák, Martin</creator><creator>Števík, Martin</creator><creator>Sýkorová, Martina</creator><creator>Sivák, Jozef</creator><creator>Rovňák, Marek</creator><creator>Zapletalová, Jana</creator><creator>Mužík, Juraj</creator><creator>Šinák, Igor</creator><creator>Kurča, Egon</creator><creator>Meyer, Lukas</creator><creator>Fiehler, Jens</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0416-2985</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220901</creationdate><title>Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation</title><author>Sýkora, Ján ; Zeleňák, Kamil ; Vorčák, Martin ; Števík, Martin ; Sýkorová, Martina ; Sivák, Jozef ; Rovňák, Marek ; Zapletalová, Jana ; Mužík, Juraj ; Šinák, Igor ; Kurča, Egon ; Meyer, Lukas ; Fiehler, Jens</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-cab9ff36b5022023ea27bf98a1446d68844d4e42d117820cfc2fb65fe7691b6a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Arterial Interventions</topic><topic>Cardiology</topic><topic>Carotid arteries</topic><topic>Carotid artery</topic><topic>Clinical Investigation</topic><topic>Dyslipidemia</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Implants</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Nuclear Medicine</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Restenosis</topic><topic>Stents</topic><topic>Surgical implants</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sýkora, Ján</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeleňák, Kamil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vorčák, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Števík, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sýkorová, Martina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sivák, Jozef</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rovňák, Marek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zapletalová, Jana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mužík, Juraj</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Šinák, Igor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kurča, Egon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyer, Lukas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fiehler, Jens</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cardiovascular and interventional radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sýkora, Ján</au><au>Zeleňák, Kamil</au><au>Vorčák, Martin</au><au>Števík, Martin</au><au>Sýkorová, Martina</au><au>Sivák, Jozef</au><au>Rovňák, Marek</au><au>Zapletalová, Jana</au><au>Mužík, Juraj</au><au>Šinák, Igor</au><au>Kurča, Egon</au><au>Meyer, Lukas</au><au>Fiehler, Jens</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation</atitle><jtitle>Cardiovascular and interventional radiology</jtitle><stitle>Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol</stitle><date>2022-09-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1257</spage><epage>1266</epage><pages>1257-1266</pages><issn>0174-1551</issn><eissn>1432-086X</eissn><abstract>Purpose
The aim of this study was to report intermediate-term results of duplex ultrasound follow-up of carotid artery stenting performed with the dual-layer stent as compared to concurrent patients treated with other commercially available single-layer carotid stents.
Materials and Methods
A single centre, retrospective, nonrandomized study including 162 non-consecutive patients with 199 implanted carotid stents treated over a 7-year period was conducted. Patients with at least one ultrasound examination after treatment were included. Procedural and follow-up data for patients treated with the dual-layer stent implantation (83 stents) vs first-generation carotid stents implantations (116 stents) were compared.
Results
The median follow-up time was 24.0 months (IQR 10–32 months) for dual-layer stents and 27.5 months (IQR 10.3–59 months) for single-layer stents. The rate of severe restenosis was significantly higher in the dual-layer stent group than in the single-layer group (13.3% [11/83] vs 3.4% [4/116],
p
= 0.01). Seven reinterventions were performed in 5 patients with dual-layer stents. The rate of reintervention was significantly higher compared to no reinterventions in single-layer stents (6% [5/83] vs 0% [0/116],
p
= 0.012). Patients with restenosis had significantly higher presence of dyslipidaemia (100% [12/12] vs 63.3% [95/150],
p
= 0.009).
Conclusions
In this real-world cohort of patients undergoing carotid artery stenting, the patients treated with low-profile dual-layer micromesh stent showed higher rates of restenosis and reinterventions compared to first-generation single-layer stents.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s00270-022-03200-4</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0416-2985</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0174-1551 |
ispartof | Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2022-09, Vol.45 (9), p.1257-1266 |
issn | 0174-1551 1432-086X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2687719819 |
source | SpringerLink Journals |
subjects | Arterial Interventions Cardiology Carotid arteries Carotid artery Clinical Investigation Dyslipidemia Imaging Implants Medicine Medicine & Public Health Nuclear Medicine Patients Radiology Restenosis Stents Surgical implants Ultrasonic imaging Ultrasound |
title | Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T18%3A59%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Restenosis%20Risk%20in%20Single-Layer%20versus%20Dual-Layer%20Carotid%20Stents:%20A%20Duplex%20Ultrasound%20Evaluation&rft.jtitle=Cardiovascular%20and%20interventional%20radiology&rft.au=S%C3%BDkora,%20J%C3%A1n&rft.date=2022-09-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1257&rft.epage=1266&rft.pages=1257-1266&rft.issn=0174-1551&rft.eissn=1432-086X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00270-022-03200-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2711632245%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2711632245&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |