Use of coronary Palmaz-Schatz stent in the percutaneous treatment of an intracranial carotid artery stenosis

Rl, Feldman; Trigg, Lisbeth; Gaudier, J; Galat, John A.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0304(199607)38:3<316::aid-ccd23>3.0.co;2-d

Cited by 53 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because of the inability of early stents to track well into the intracranial arteries, stenting of intracranial artery stenosis has not been reported until recently, when the new generation coronary stents with more flexible and compact capabilities were developed. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] In 2000, Mori et al 15 introduced stenting of the distal ICA, intracranial vertebral artery, and basilar artery stenoses. Because of difficulty in tracking, only a few cases of selective stenting of the symptomatic MCA stenosis have been reported, 22 since Gomez et al 16 …”

Section: Discussion Endovascular Therapy Of Intracranial Stenosismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[7][8][9][10][11] In recent years, more compact and flexible stents have been developed and can be implanted in the intracranial major arteries to reduce the incidence of vessel recoil and restenosis associated with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty alone as well as treating dissection. [12][13][14][15][16] However, intracranial stenting is not without risk, despite the potential benefits. 17,18 Because of difficulty in tracking, only a few cases of selective stenting of middle cerebral artery (MCA) stenosis have been reported, 22 since Gomez et al 16 first introduced it in 2000.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stenting of Symptomatic M1 Stenosis of Middle Cerebral Artery

Jiang

Wang

et al. 2004

Stroke

148

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-To assess the safety and clinical efficacy of stenting for patients with symptomatic M1 stenosis of middle cerebral artery (MCA), and to assess the significance of classification based on location, morphology, and access of intracranial stenosis (LMA classification) in MCA stenting. Methods-Forty patients with 42 symptomatic M1 stenoses refractory to medical therapy were enrolled in this study. The lesions were situated at M1 trunk (nϭ13), M1 origin (nϭ12), and M1 bifurcation (nϭ17), respectively, which were classified into type N (nonbifurcation lesions, nϭ13) and type A (prebifurcation, nϭ11), B (postbifurcation, nϭ14), C (lesion across the nonstenotic ostium of its branch, nϭ1), D (across the stenotic ostium of its branch, nϭ2), F (combinative lesions of prebifurcation and its small branch ostium, nϭ1) locations, morphologically into type A (nϭ15), B (nϭ23) and C (nϭ4) lesions, and into type I (mild-to-moderate tortuosity and smooth access, nϭ17), II (severe tortuosity and/or irregular arterial wall, nϭ18), and III (excessively severe tortuosity, nϭ7) accesses. Results-The technical successful rate was 97.6% for total lesions and 100%, 100%, and 85.7% for types I, II, and III accesses, respectively. The total complication rate was 10%. The mortality was 2.5% (1/40 patients), and 0%, 0%, and 25% for types A, B, and C lesions, respectively. During the median 10 months follow-up, there was no recurrence of transient ischemic attack or stroke in 38 available patients. Among 8 stenting vessels of seven patients with six-month follow-up angiography, 7 showed good patency and one showed restenosis. Conclusion-Stenting appears to be an effective and feasible therapy for symptomatic M1 stenoses, but also appears to have the higher periprocedural complications, which need strict procedural and periprocedural management to reduce the mortality and morbidity. The LMA classification seems to be helpful to work out the individual therapy and predict the results of stenting. A further study is needed to confirm the benefits of stenting of MCA stenosis.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Endovascular Therapy Of Intracranial Stenosismentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stenting of Symptomatic M1 Stenosis of Middle Cerebral Artery

Jiang

Wang

et al. 2004

Stroke

148

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12 Even though stents have been used in cardiology, urology, and other fields for many years, it was not until Feldman and colleagues 10 reported the first case of carotid artery stenting in 1996 that the use of stents was extended to intracranial vessels.…”

Section: Sharpmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,5,11 Intracranial stent placement for the treatment of atherosclerotic disease was first reported by Feldman et al 10 in 1996 when they successfully treated a patient with recurrent transient ischemic attacks due to internal carotid artery stenosis. This was followed by an explosion in the development of stent technology leading to the introduction of balloon-mountable stents, self-expandable stents, drug-eluting stents, and the flow-diversion stents.…”

Section: Origin Of Intravascular and Intracranial Stentingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Charles Stent and the mystery behind the word “stent”

Ambekar¹,

Nanda²

2013

JNS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stents have come to be well-known devices and are being used widely in numerous branches of medicine. It is intriguing that the word “stent” actually derives from the name of a dentist, Charles Stent, who developed a material to obtain dental impressions. There are numerous other theories as to the origin of the word and how its use has been extended to various fields in medicine. The origin of intravascular stenting took place as early as 1912, but it was not until Charles Dotter reinvented the wheel in 1969 that further development took place in the technology and techniques of stenting. Intracranial stenting is a relatively new and rapidly developing field that came into being not more than 12 years ago. The authors describe the life and works of Charles Stent, discuss the possible origins of the word stent, and discuss how intravascular and intracranial stenting came into existence.

show abstract

“…20 -22 These data were extrapolated to the intracranial circulation, and several case reports and small series of intracranial stenting were subsequently reported. [23][24][25][26] The rigidity of the available balloon mounted coronary stents greatly limited the access of these devices to the tortuous cerebrovasculature and considerably increased the technical difficulty of the procedure in comparison to PTA alone. The reported periprocedural complication rates (0% to 36%) for intracranial PTAS vary widely, but in general, trend higher than those reported for PTA alone.…”

Section: Percutaneous Transluminal Balloon Angioplastymentioning

confidence: 99%