Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy

Current Status

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

As operator experience and device technology continue to improve, the theoretic advantages of endovascular approaches to treat carotid occlusive disease may be closer to realization. Currently, data from controlled trials of CAS is minimal, but several multicenter RCTs comparing CAS to CEA are recruiting patients actively and preliminary results show procedural morbidity and mortality rates for CAS that compare favorably to CEA. Community-based experience with CAS continues to grow and further refinements in patient selection based on plaque morphology and other variables offer further hope that endovascular approaches to carotid occlusive disease may benefit selected patients. Given the proved efficacy and durability of CEA for treatment of extracranial carotid stenosis, surgical revascularization remains the recommended standard of care for most patients. CAS will have to be proved equivalent or superior to surgery and as cost-effective to facilitate its widespread acceptance as a treatment alternative for carotid occlusive disease.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)681-695
Number of pages15
JournalNeurologic Clinics
Volume24
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2006

Fingerprint

Carotid Endarterectomy
Carotid Arteries
Carotid Stenosis
Standard of Care
Patient Selection
Technology
Morbidity
Costs and Cost Analysis
Equipment and Supplies
Mortality
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy : Current Status. / Barrett, Kevin M; Brott, Thomas G.

In: Neurologic Clinics, Vol. 24, No. 4, 11.2006, p. 681-695.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c1a19160c5f34f5f9ff5c41124241d4a,
title = "Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy: Current Status",
abstract = "As operator experience and device technology continue to improve, the theoretic advantages of endovascular approaches to treat carotid occlusive disease may be closer to realization. Currently, data from controlled trials of CAS is minimal, but several multicenter RCTs comparing CAS to CEA are recruiting patients actively and preliminary results show procedural morbidity and mortality rates for CAS that compare favorably to CEA. Community-based experience with CAS continues to grow and further refinements in patient selection based on plaque morphology and other variables offer further hope that endovascular approaches to carotid occlusive disease may benefit selected patients. Given the proved efficacy and durability of CEA for treatment of extracranial carotid stenosis, surgical revascularization remains the recommended standard of care for most patients. CAS will have to be proved equivalent or superior to surgery and as cost-effective to facilitate its widespread acceptance as a treatment alternative for carotid occlusive disease.",
author = "Barrett, {Kevin M} and Brott, {Thomas G}",
year = "2006",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.ncl.2006.05.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "681--695",
journal = "Neurologic Clinics",
issn = "0733-8619",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy

T2 - Current Status

AU - Barrett, Kevin M

AU - Brott, Thomas G

PY - 2006/11

Y1 - 2006/11

N2 - As operator experience and device technology continue to improve, the theoretic advantages of endovascular approaches to treat carotid occlusive disease may be closer to realization. Currently, data from controlled trials of CAS is minimal, but several multicenter RCTs comparing CAS to CEA are recruiting patients actively and preliminary results show procedural morbidity and mortality rates for CAS that compare favorably to CEA. Community-based experience with CAS continues to grow and further refinements in patient selection based on plaque morphology and other variables offer further hope that endovascular approaches to carotid occlusive disease may benefit selected patients. Given the proved efficacy and durability of CEA for treatment of extracranial carotid stenosis, surgical revascularization remains the recommended standard of care for most patients. CAS will have to be proved equivalent or superior to surgery and as cost-effective to facilitate its widespread acceptance as a treatment alternative for carotid occlusive disease.

AB - As operator experience and device technology continue to improve, the theoretic advantages of endovascular approaches to treat carotid occlusive disease may be closer to realization. Currently, data from controlled trials of CAS is minimal, but several multicenter RCTs comparing CAS to CEA are recruiting patients actively and preliminary results show procedural morbidity and mortality rates for CAS that compare favorably to CEA. Community-based experience with CAS continues to grow and further refinements in patient selection based on plaque morphology and other variables offer further hope that endovascular approaches to carotid occlusive disease may benefit selected patients. Given the proved efficacy and durability of CEA for treatment of extracranial carotid stenosis, surgical revascularization remains the recommended standard of care for most patients. CAS will have to be proved equivalent or superior to surgery and as cost-effective to facilitate its widespread acceptance as a treatment alternative for carotid occlusive disease.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748146013&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748146013&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ncl.2006.05.003

DO - 10.1016/j.ncl.2006.05.003

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 681

EP - 695

JO - Neurologic Clinics

JF - Neurologic Clinics

SN - 0733-8619

IS - 4

ER -