Key result
Implantation of a nitinol stent was an independent risk factor for developing persisting hemodynamic depression after carotid artery stenting (adjusted OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.12-2.34; p=0.011).
Why the study?
Does stent selection and procedure-related vessel diameter changes influence the development of persisting hemodynamic depression in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting?
Observational (n=542)
Does stent selection and procedure-related vessel diameter changes influence the development of persisting hemodynamic depression in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting?
Odds Ratio: 1.62 (95% CI 1.12–2.34)
p-value: p=0.011
Nitinol stent use, carotid bulb involvement, and calcification are independent risk factors for persisting hemodynamic depression after carotid artery stenting, while permanent pacemaker implantation is effective for refractory cases.
Nitinol stent use was associated with higher persisting hemodynamic depression risk after carotid stenting; this hypothesis-generating observation leaves open whether stent selection warrants prospective evaluation.
PURPOSE: To investigate the possible role of stent selection and procedure-related vessel diameter changes in the development of persisting hemodynamic depression (PHD) and to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of permanent pacemaker implantation in patients with refractory PHD. METHODS: Data from 584 procedures performed in 542 patients (398 men; mean age 67.3 years) between 2008 and 2011 using Wallstent, Precise, and Xact stents in a nonrandomized fashion were analyzed retrospectively. Cardiovascular risk factors and lesion, stent, and balloon characteristics were collected, and the pre- and postprocedure diameters of the common carotid artery (CCA) and internal carotid artery were measured. PHD was defined as any episode of hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg) and/or bradycardia (heart rate <60/min) lasting >6 hours. Risk factors for PHD were sought using logistic regression analyses; the results are presented as the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: The incidence of PHD was 37.0% (216/584). Refractory PHD was encountered in 9 patients; among these, 6 were successfully treated with pacemaker implantation. A history of prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.87, p=0.019) and the presence of a contralateral high-grade stenosis (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95, p=0.045) were independent protective factors, while calcification (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.18, p=0.034), involvement of the carotid bulb (OR 2.56, 95% 1.62 to 4.03, p<0.001), and implantation of a nitinol stent (adjusted OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.34, p=0.011) were independent risk factors for developing PHD after carotid artery stenting. The ratio of the post-/preprocedure CCA diameter (p=0.002), the stent to CCA diameter ratio (p=0.009), and the presence of residual stenosis (p=0.009) were significantly higher in the PHD group. CONCLUSION: Stent selection and procedure-related changes in vessel diameter may have an influence on the development of PHD. Permanent pacemaker implantation is an effective treatment option in patients with refractory PHD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Csobay-Novák et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Carotid artery stenosis undergoing stenting (n=542). Implantation of a nitinol stent vs. Non-nitinol stents was evaluated on Persisting hemodynamic depression (PHD) (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.12-2.34, p=0.011). Implantation of a nitinol stent was an independent risk factor for developing persisting hemodynamic depression after carotid artery stenting (adjusted OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.12-2.34; p=0.011).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: