Background: To examine our initial experience in carotid stenting (CS) for the prevention of stroke in patients with high-grade carotid stenoses.
Methods: The authors performed 26 CS procedures in 25 carotid vessels in 22 patients over a 15-month period. All carotid stenoses treated, except one, were 70% or greater. Of all CS procedures, 84% were performed for obstructing atherosclerotic plaques. CS was performed in one patient each for carotid dissection and pseudoaneurysms caused by a gunshot wound, post-radiation stenosis, post-carotid endarterectomy (CEA) restenosis, and a flow-obstructing post-CEA intimal flap. Of all patients, 68.2% were symptomatic, with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attacks ipsilateral to the treated carotid artery. In addition, 36.4% of our patients were either hospitalized or required skilled nursing care before CS because of severe neurologic deficits. Using the Sundt CEA-risk classification system, 59.1% of our patients were classified as Grade III and 40.9% were Grade IV pre-CS. All but one patient had either a compelling medical or anatomic reason for endovascular treatment of their carotid disease. We used both Wallstents and Palmaz stents, and all procedures were performed via the transfemoral route. Three procedures were performed in conjunction with detachable platinum coil embolization for multiple carotid pseudoaneurysms, a residual carotid "stump" after previous ICA thrombosis, and an ipsilateral MCA saccular aneurysm.
Results: We had a 96.2% procedural technical success rate. There was one death in our series 3 weeks post-CS attributable to myocardial infarction. Despite a high 30-day combined death, stroke, and ipsilateral blindness rate of 27.3% (6/22 patients), only two ipsilateral strokes directly related to CS occurred (7.7% per procedures performed) from which one patient recovered fully within 5 days. The average follow-up post-CS was 5.9 months (range, 3 weeks-15 months). Of successfully treated vessels, 58.3% have undergone 6-month follow-up vascular imaging, which has revealed a 14.3% rate of occlusion or restenosis greater than 50%. At or beyond 1 month post-CS, 19 of 21 surviving patients (90.5%) were ambulatory, fluent of speech, and independent, and none has thus far suffered a delayed stroke or TIA.
Conclusion: CS seems to be a reasonable alternative to medical management for the treatment of carotid disease in patients deemed to be poor candidates for standard carotid surgery. Longer term follow-up is necessary to assess the durability of carotid revascularization using CS.