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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cardiovascular and interventional radiology 2022-09, Vol.45 (9), p.1257-1266
Hauptverfasser: 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
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; 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