From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. General Medicine>
  4. Summary and Comment

Carotid Stenting -- An Alternative to Endarterectomy

Carotid-artery stenting using an emboli-protection device clearly was not inferior to carotid endarterectomy.

Carotid-artery angioplasty with stenting is a less invasive alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). One problem with stenting, however, is that it causes embolization of plaque debris to the brain. To mitigate this problem, emboli-protection devices have been developed.

In this U.S. trial, supported by a maker of stents and protection devices, 334 patients underwent either CEA or protected carotid-artery stenting. The protection device used in stented patients (and invented by the lead author) was a filter basket that was placed distal to the carotid stenosis via a guidewire. After the procedure, the filter and its captured embolic material were removed. The trial included both asymptomatic patients with at least 80% stenosis and symptomatic patients with at least 50% stenosis; all enrollees had at least one of seven specified high-risk characteristics.

The primary endpoint was death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 30 days, plus ipsilateral stroke or neurologic death at 31 days to 1 year. This endpoint occurred in 12% of stented patients and 20% of CEA patients. Statistical analysis showed that stenting clearly was not inferior to CEA, and probably was superior to CEA (P=0.05).

Comment: According to the composite endpoint used in this study, protected carotid-artery stenting is at least as good as CEA. Longer follow-up and a comparison of CEA and protected stenting in lower-risk patients are additional research priorities.

— Allan S. Brett, MD

Published in Journal Watch General Medicine October 29, 2004

Citation(s):

Yadav JS et al. Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2004 Oct 7; 351:1493-501.

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. Please consider this when composing your remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Article Tools

Reader Remarks

Sign-In

Forgot your password?

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 2004. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.