eISSN: 1897-4295
ISSN: 1734-9338
Advances in Interventional Cardiology/Postępy w Kardiologii Interwencyjnej
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
2/2017
vol. 13
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Original paper

Comparison of closed-cell and hybrid-cell stent designs in carotid artery stenting: clinical and procedural outcomes

Ersan TatlI, Alptug Tokatli, Mehmet Bulent Vatan, Mustafa Tarik Agac, Huseyin Gunduz, Ramazan Akdemir, Harun Kilic

Adv Interv Cardiol 2017; 13, 2 (48): 135–141
Online publish date: 2017/05/25
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Introduction: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a promising alternative to surgery in high-risk patients. However, the impact of stent cell design on outcomes in CAS is a matter of continued debate.

Aim: To compare the periprocedural and clinical outcomes of different stent designs for CAS with distal protection devices.

Material and methods: All CAS procedures with both closed- and hybrid-cell stents performed at our institution between February 2010 and December 2015 were analyzed retrospectively. Adverse events were defined as death, major stroke, minor stroke, transient ischemic attack and myocardial infarction. Periprocedural and 30-day adverse events and internal carotid artery (ICA) vasospasm rates were compared between the closed-cell and hybrid-cell stent groups.

Results: The study included 234 patients comprising 146 patients with a closed-cell stent (Xact stent, Abbott Vascular) (mean age: 68.5 ±8.6; 67.1% male) and 88 patients with a hybrid-cell stent (Cristallo Ideale, Medtronic) (mean age: 67.2 ±12.8; 68.2% male). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to periprocedural or 30-day adverse event rates. While there was no difference in terms of tortuosity index between the groups, there was a higher procedural ICA vasospasm rate in the closed-cell stent group (35 patients, 23%) compared with the hybrid-cell stent group (10 patients, 11%) (p = 0.017).

Conclusions: The results of this study showed no significant difference in the clinical adverse event rates after CAS between the closed-cell stent group and the hybrid-cell stent group. However, procedural ICA vasospasm was more common in the closed-cell stent group.
keywords:

carotid artery stenosis, carotid artery stenting, stent design, closed cell, hybrid cell, outcomes

Quick links
© 2019 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe