Carotid angioplasty and stenting for recurrent and radiation-induced stenosis: preliminary experience

Carotid endarterectomy for atherosclerotic occlusive disease has become the standard of care for the treatment of symptomatic and asymptomatic occlusive disease of the carotid bifurcation, based on the results of the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial, as well as the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study. For surgical treatment to be of benefit, the perioperative complication rate for neurological events should be 6% or less in the symptomatic population and 3% or less in the asymptomatic group. The performance of carotid endarterectomy for recurrent stenosis and radiation-induced stenosis has reported neurological events ranging from 4 to 10%. It is in this particular population that carotid angioplasty and stent placement may play a role. The authors performed a retrospective analysis of 11 patients who underwent carotid angioplasty and stent placement for recurrent or radiation-induced stenosis. One patient in whom endarterectomy was performed by the vascular surgery service had a critical stenosis distal to the endarterectomy site and awoke with a neurological deficit. This patient underwent reexploration and placement of a stent in the artery distal to the arteriotomy site. The follow-up period ranged from 7 to 12 months. Patient age ranged from 65 to 77 years (mean 75 years). Five of eight patients underwent angioplasty and stent placement for recurrent atherosclerotic disease. Two patients had radiation-induced stenosis, and one patient had a stent placed intraoperatively. All patients, with the exception of the one who underwent intraoperative stent placement, had posttreatment stenoses of less than 15%. The surgical patient had a 30% residual stenosis distally. There were no intra- or postoperative transient ischemic attacks, major or minor strokes, or deaths. Patients who have recurrent or radiation-induced stenosis are potential candidates for angioplasty and stent placement. Before this can be recommended as an alternative to surgical correction, a longer follow-up period is required.