Technical aspects and current results of carotid stenting

We reviewed our experience with carotid stenting (CS), focusing on technical evolution and results.

From September 1995 to February 2000, 77 patients with 83 internal (n = 68) and common carotid artery lesions (n = 15) were selected for CS. This patient population was categorized into three consecutive periods based on patient selection, material, and technical skills. For internal carotid artery lesions, period I included 11 patients treated by means of direct carotid puncture with balloon expandable stents; period II included 42 patients treated by means of a femoral approach with self-expandable stents; and period III included 15 patients in whom monorail system and cerebral protection devices were used. Common carotid artery lesions were treated by means of carotid puncture in five patients and by means of a femoral approach in 10 patients. In only two of the latter cases, cerebral protection devices were used.

The overall immediate success rate, defined as successfully treated stenosis with no neurological events, was 89.7% for internal carotid artery lesions and 100% for common carotid artery lesions. All neurological events, which consisted of reversible events (4.4%), minor stroke (1.5%), and major stroke (2.9%), occurred during periods I and II. In periods I, II, and III, the rate of surgical conversion was 18%, 9.5%, and 0%, respectively, the rate of transient ischemic attack and reversible ischemic neurologic deficit was 0%, 7%, and 0%, respectively, and the rate of minor and major stroke was 0%, 7%, and 0%, respectively. All major strokes were cleared with intra-arterial thrombolysis. At discharge, the success rates defined by means of the absence of conversion and neurological events were 82% during period I, 76% during period II, and 100% during period III. The freedom from neurological deficits rates were 100%, 97.6%, and 100%, respectively. During follow-up, six significant asymptomatic restenoses were detected with duplex scanning; however, only one patient required reintervention.

Technical skills and technological improvement, including low-profile balloon and catheter, cerebral protection device, and intra-arterial rescue techniques, may reduce the rate of neurological events associated with CS. Technical improvements should be given careful consideration before the initiation of randomized trials comparing CS and carotid endarterectomy.