Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 8, 2026
A Murine Model of Stent Implantation in the Carotid Artery for the Study of Restenosis
Published on: May 14, 2013
Comparative study of operative treatment and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty/stenting for recurrent carotid
A F Aburahma1, M C Bates, P A Stone
1Vascular Laboratory, the Department of Surgery, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West Virginia University, Charleston, USA. ali.aburahma@camcare.com
Purpose:
This study is a nonrandomized parallel comparison of the outcome for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA)/stenting for recurrent carotid artery stenosis (RCS).
Methods And Patients:
Between June 1996 and June 2000, 83 carotid procedures (58 reoperations, Group I, and 25 PTA/stentings, Group II) were done for RCS. Patients were followed at regular intervals with duplex ultrasound scanning. The outcome of the stented group (Group II) was divided into early experience (Group IIA, first 12 cases) and late experience (Group IIB, last 13 cases) for learning curve consideration, and each was compared with the reoperation group. A Kaplan-Meier life table analysis was used to estimate the stroke-free survival rates and freedom from > or =50% recurrent restenosis for both groups.
Results:
The demographic and clinical characteristics and indications for intervention were similar for both groups. The mean time from the original CEA to reoperation was 41 months in Group I versus 43 months in Group II. Overall, stenting had higher 30-day stroke rates than reoperations-16% (3 major and 1 minor stroke) versus 3.4% (1 out of 2 [1.7%] was a major stroke, P <.05). However, Group IIB had similar major stroke rates to Group I (0% versus 1.7%). Cranial nerve injury was noted in 10 patients (17%) in Group I (only 1 [1.7%] was permanent) versus 0% in Group II (P <.05). Recurrent > or =50% restenosis was higher in Group II than in Group I (24% versus 0%, P <.001). Stroke-free survival rates at 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years for Group I were 97%, 97%, 94%, and 82%, respectively, versus 79%, 79%, 79%, and 79%, respectively, for Group II (P =.059). Freedom from recurrent > or =50% restenosis rates at 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years were 100%, 100%, 100%, and 100%, respectively, for Group I versus 100%, 94%, 65%, and 44%, respectively, for Group II (P <.0001).
Conclusions:
Carotid PTA/stenting has a similar 30-day stroke rate to that of reoperation for RCS once experience is established. However, PTA/stenting has a higher incidence of restenosis than reoperation, which is associated with a percentage of cranial nerve injuries. Therefore, PTA/stenting can be an alternative to reoperation, particularly in marginal surgical risk patients.
