Research ExplorerPublicationsComparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-La...

Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation

Standard

Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation. / Sýkora, Ján; Zeleňák, Kamil; Vorčák, Martin; Števík, Martin; Sýkorová, Martina; Sivák, Jozef; Rovňák, Marek; Zapletalová, Jana; Mužík, Juraj; Šinák, Igor; Kurča, Egon; Meyer, Lukas; Fiehler, Jens.

In: CARDIOVASC INTER RAD, Vol. 45, No. 9, 09.2022, p. 1257-1266.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Sýkora, J, Zeleňák, K, Vorčák, M, Števík, M, Sýkorová, M, Sivák, J, Rovňák, M, Zapletalová, J, Mužík, J, Šinák, I, Kurča, E, Meyer, L & Fiehler, J 2022, 'Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation', CARDIOVASC INTER RAD, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 1257-1266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-022-03200-4

APA

Sýkora, J., Zeleňák, K., Vorčák, M., Števík, M., Sýkorová, M., Sivák, J., Rovňák, M., Zapletalová, J., Mužík, J., Šinák, I., Kurča, E., Meyer, L., & Fiehler, J. (2022). Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation. CARDIOVASC INTER RAD, 45(9), 1257-1266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-022-03200-4

Vancouver

Sýkora J, Zeleňák K, Vorčák M, Števík M, Sýkorová M, Sivák J et al. Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation. CARDIOVASC INTER RAD. 2022 Sep;45(9):1257-1266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-022-03200-4

Bibtex

@article{19b4c336acea422cab2c54c042ad5aee,
title = "Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation",
abstract = "PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to report intermediate-term results of duplex ultrasound follow-up of carotid artery stenting performed with the dual-layer stent as compared to concurrent patients treated with other commercially available single-layer carotid stents.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single centre, retrospective, nonrandomized study including 162 non-consecutive patients with 199 implanted carotid stents treated over a 7-year period was conducted. Patients with at least one ultrasound examination after treatment were included. Procedural and follow-up data for patients treated with the dual-layer stent implantation (83 stents) vs first-generation carotid stents implantations (116 stents) were compared.RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 24.0 months (IQR 10-32 months) for dual-layer stents and 27.5 months (IQR 10.3-59 months) for single-layer stents. The rate of severe restenosis was significantly higher in the dual-layer stent group than in the single-layer group (13.3% [11/83] vs 3.4% [4/116], p = 0.01). Seven reinterventions were performed in 5 patients with dual-layer stents. The rate of reintervention was significantly higher compared to no reinterventions in single-layer stents (6% [5/83] vs 0% [0/116], p = 0.012). Patients with restenosis had significantly higher presence of dyslipidaemia (100% [12/12] vs 63.3% [95/150], p = 0.009).CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world cohort of patients undergoing carotid artery stenting, the patients treated with low-profile dual-layer micromesh stent showed higher rates of restenosis and reinterventions compared to first-generation single-layer stents.",
author = "J{\'a}n S{\'y}kora and Kamil Zele{\v n}{\'a}k and Martin Vor{\v c}{\'a}k and Martin {\v S}tev{\'i}k and Martina S{\'y}korov{\'a} and Jozef Siv{\'a}k and Marek Rov{\v n}{\'a}k and Jana Zapletalov{\'a} and Juraj Mu{\v z}{\'i}k and Igor {\v S}in{\'a}k and Egon Kur{\v c}a and Lukas Meyer and Jens Fiehler",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2022. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE).",
year = "2022",
month = sep,
doi = "10.1007/s00270-022-03200-4",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
pages = "1257--1266",
journal = "CARDIOVASC INTER RAD",
issn = "0174-1551",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "9",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation

AU - Sýkora, Ján

AU - Zeleňák, Kamil

AU - Vorčák, Martin

AU - Števík, Martin

AU - Sýkorová, Martina

AU - Sivák, Jozef

AU - Rovňák, Marek

AU - Zapletalová, Jana

AU - Mužík, Juraj

AU - Šinák, Igor

AU - Kurča, Egon

AU - Meyer, Lukas

AU - Fiehler, Jens

N1 - © 2022. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE).

PY - 2022/9

Y1 - 2022/9

N2 - PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to report intermediate-term results of duplex ultrasound follow-up of carotid artery stenting performed with the dual-layer stent as compared to concurrent patients treated with other commercially available single-layer carotid stents.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single centre, retrospective, nonrandomized study including 162 non-consecutive patients with 199 implanted carotid stents treated over a 7-year period was conducted. Patients with at least one ultrasound examination after treatment were included. Procedural and follow-up data for patients treated with the dual-layer stent implantation (83 stents) vs first-generation carotid stents implantations (116 stents) were compared.RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 24.0 months (IQR 10-32 months) for dual-layer stents and 27.5 months (IQR 10.3-59 months) for single-layer stents. The rate of severe restenosis was significantly higher in the dual-layer stent group than in the single-layer group (13.3% [11/83] vs 3.4% [4/116], p = 0.01). Seven reinterventions were performed in 5 patients with dual-layer stents. The rate of reintervention was significantly higher compared to no reinterventions in single-layer stents (6% [5/83] vs 0% [0/116], p = 0.012). Patients with restenosis had significantly higher presence of dyslipidaemia (100% [12/12] vs 63.3% [95/150], p = 0.009).CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world cohort of patients undergoing carotid artery stenting, the patients treated with low-profile dual-layer micromesh stent showed higher rates of restenosis and reinterventions compared to first-generation single-layer stents.

AB - PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to report intermediate-term results of duplex ultrasound follow-up of carotid artery stenting performed with the dual-layer stent as compared to concurrent patients treated with other commercially available single-layer carotid stents.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single centre, retrospective, nonrandomized study including 162 non-consecutive patients with 199 implanted carotid stents treated over a 7-year period was conducted. Patients with at least one ultrasound examination after treatment were included. Procedural and follow-up data for patients treated with the dual-layer stent implantation (83 stents) vs first-generation carotid stents implantations (116 stents) were compared.RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 24.0 months (IQR 10-32 months) for dual-layer stents and 27.5 months (IQR 10.3-59 months) for single-layer stents. The rate of severe restenosis was significantly higher in the dual-layer stent group than in the single-layer group (13.3% [11/83] vs 3.4% [4/116], p = 0.01). Seven reinterventions were performed in 5 patients with dual-layer stents. The rate of reintervention was significantly higher compared to no reinterventions in single-layer stents (6% [5/83] vs 0% [0/116], p = 0.012). Patients with restenosis had significantly higher presence of dyslipidaemia (100% [12/12] vs 63.3% [95/150], p = 0.009).CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world cohort of patients undergoing carotid artery stenting, the patients treated with low-profile dual-layer micromesh stent showed higher rates of restenosis and reinterventions compared to first-generation single-layer stents.

U2 - 10.1007/s00270-022-03200-4

DO - 10.1007/s00270-022-03200-4

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 35798859

VL - 45

SP - 1257

EP - 1266

JO - CARDIOVASC INTER RAD

JF - CARDIOVASC INTER RAD

SN - 0174-1551

IS - 9

ER -