The Argument to Support Broader Application of Extracranial Carotid Artery Stent Technology
| Autor: | Junichi Yamamoto, Rodney M. Samuelson, Adnan H. Siddiqui, L. Nelson Hopkins, Elad I. Levy |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2007 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
business.industry medicine.medical_treatment Angioplasty Gold standard MEDLINE Stent Context (language use) Carotid endarterectomy Revascularization law.invention Randomized controlled trial law Physiology (medical) medicine Humans Carotid Stenosis Stents Radiology Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine business Intensive care medicine Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic |
| Zdroj: | Circulation. 116:1602-1610 |
| ISSN: | 1524-4539 0009-7322 |
| DOI: | 10.1161/circulationaha.106.670034 |
| Popis: | As new technology becomes available, the stent technique for the extracranial carotid artery continues to evolve into a safer, more effective therapy for stroke prevention. With the availability of embolic protection, improved stent designs, and added endovascular physician experience, outcomes for carotid artery stenting (CAS) now consistently parallel those for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Although carotid endarterectomy was established as the gold standard for carotid revascularization, the available scientific evidence must continue to be interpreted in the context of further advancements in nearly all related areas of medicine. One multicenter randomized trial and several nonrandomized registries have successfully established the CAS indications for patients with high surgical risk and have provided evidence to support the use of CAS techniques in patients with low surgical risk. Clinicians must continue to improve their understanding of patient-specific factors and conduct research that will refine indications while optimizing current medical therapy and that will integrate CAS and carotid endarterectomy as complementary treatments. Response by LoGerfo p 1610 The outcomes for CAS have been improving over the past 10 years and now appear nearly equivalent to those for CEA. In fact, many historical similarities are seen in the development of these 2 techniques. Although CEA was established as the gold standard for extracranial carotid revascularization, the available scientific evidence must continue to be interpreted in the context of further advancements in nearly all related areas of medicine. The current research comparing CAS and CEA has not shown a clinically robust and statistically significant difference between the 2 treatments. When differences do exist, clinicians must continue to refine patient-specific indications and to conduct further research to understand these complex risk-benefit analyses in the context of advanced medical treatments and complementary revascularization techniques. The following review details the argument to support implementation of CAS technology for athero-occlusive carotid … |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|