Background Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence.Methods ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362.
Cerebral protection with the filter device is technically feasible in most cases. DW-MRI demonstrated new cerebral lesions indicating the occurrence of cerebral microemboli during the protected procedures. Further investigations are necessary to determine whether the use of the cerebral protection device will improve the results of CAS.
The treatment of iliac artery occlusive disease with SE as compared with BE resulted in a lower 12-month restenosis rate and a significantly reduced TLR rate. No safety concerns arose in both groups. (Iliac, Common and External [ICE] Artery Stent Trial; NCT01305174).
The Misago rapid-exchange nitinol stent showed promising efficacy and safety results, with a low stent fracture rate, in patients with femoropopliteal disease, making it a safe and reliable treatment option.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the novel Phoenix Atherectomy System as percutaneous treatment of de novo and restenotic infrainguinal arterial lesions.MethodsThis prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized investigational device exemption trial was conducted across 16 US and German centers between August 2010 and April 2013. Intention-to-treat enrollment was 128 patients (mean age: 71.8 years, 59% male) with 149 lesions (mean length: 34 mm, mean diameter stenosis: 89.5%), and the primary analysis per-protocol population consisted of 105 patients with 123 lesions. The primary efficacy endpoint, technical success, was the achievement of acute debulking with a post-atherectomy residual diameter stenosis ≤50% (before adjunctive therapy). The primary safety endpoint was the major adverse event (MAE) rate through 30 days.ResultsFor the primary analysis per-protocol population, the rate of lesion technical success was 95.1% (117/123), with the lower limit of the 95% CI 90.6%, meeting the prospectively established target performance goal of ≥86%. After post-atherectomy adjunctive therapy, residual stenosis was ≤30% for 99.2% (122/123) of lesions (mean final diameter stenosis 10.5%). Improvement of ≥1 Rutherford class occurred for 74.5% of patients through 30 days and for 80% through six months. MAEs were experienced by 5.7% (6/105) of patients through 30 days (with the upper limit of the 95% CI 11.0%, meeting the target performance goal of <20%), and 16.8% through six months. Six-month freedom from TLR and TVR was 88.0% and 86.1%, respectively.ConclusionsBased on the high rate of technical success and the low rates of MAEs through six months, the Phoenix Atherectomy System is safe and effective for the debulking of lower-extremity arterial lesions.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01541774
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.