Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/20084
Title: | Carotid Artery Stenting: Current State of Evidence and Future Directions. | Austin Authors: | Lamanna, Anthony ;Maingard, Julian;Barras, Christen;Kok, Hong Kuan;Handelman, Guy;Chandra, Ronil V;Thijs, Vincent N ;Brooks, Duncan Mark ;Asadi, Hamed | Affiliation: | The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia Department of Neurology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia Department of Imaging, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia Interventional Neuroradiology Unit - Monash Imaging, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia Interventional Radiology Service - Department of Radiology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia Department of Interventional Radiology - Guy's and St Thomas', NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom Interventional Neuroradiology Service, Department of Radiology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia School of Medicine - Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, Australia Stroke Division, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience & Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Department of Interventional Radiology - Guy's and St Thomas', NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom Education and Research Centre, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland Department of Radiology, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom Department of Imaging, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia |
Issue Date: | Apr-2019 | Date: | 2019-01-04 | Publication information: | Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 2019; 139(4): 318-333 | Abstract: | Both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are common treatments for carotid artery stenosis. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared CEA to CAS in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. These studies have suggested that CAS is more strongly associated with periprocedural stroke, however CEA is more strongly associated with myocardial infarction. Published long-term outcomes report that CAS and CEA are similar. A reduction in complications associated with CAS has also been demonstrated over time. The symptomatic status of the patient and history of previous CEA or cervical radiotherapy are significant factors when deciding between CEA or CAS. Numerous carotid artery stents are available, varying in material, shape and design but with minimal evidence comparing stent types. The role of cerebral protection devices is unclear. Dual antiplatelet therapy is typically prescribed to prevent in-stent thrombosis, however evidence comparing periprocedural and postprocedural antiplatelet therapy is scarce, resulting in inconsistent guidelines. Several RCTs are underway that will aim to clarify some of these uncertainties. In this review, we summarise the development of varying techniques of CAS and studies comparing CAS to CEA as treatment options for carotid artery stenosis. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. | URI: | https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/20084 | DOI: | 10.1111/ane.13062 | ORCID: | 0000-0002-6614-8417 0000-0003-2475-9727 0000-0001-8958-2411 |
Journal: | Acta Neurologica Scandinavica | PubMed URL: | 30613950 | Type: | Journal Article | Subjects: | carotid artery atherosclerosis carotid artery stenosis carotid artery stenting carotid endarterectomy Stroke Stroke prevention |
Appears in Collections: | Journal articles |
Show full item record
Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.