Hemodynamic changes between different anatomically designed stents after carotid stenting: a prospective multicenter stu
- PDF / 748,905 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 29 Downloads / 178 Views
ORIGINAL COMMUNICATION
Hemodynamic changes between different anatomically designed stents after carotid stenting: a prospective multicenter study JianFeng Han2 · JianLin Liu1 · Wei Liu3 · JinHua Zhang4 · Jiang Cheng5 · Chao Liu1 · Yang Han1 · Lin Yang1 Received: 6 May 2020 / Revised: 25 June 2020 / Accepted: 26 June 2020 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Background The aim of this study was to investigate differences in the dynamic changes and risk factors of hemodynamic depression (HD) between straight and tapered carotid stenting (SCS and TCS, respectively). Methods A total of 148 and 167 patients were included in TCS and SCS groups in this study, respectively. All clinical data were collected and analyzed for differences in HD and primary endpoint events at 12 months. Results The SCS procedure had a lower predilation rate and a higher incidence of intra- and postprocedure HD; furthermore, the decline in heart rate in the SCS procedure was higher in patients with intra- and postprocedure HD (P 70 years) was accompanied by a lower risk (OR 0.58; P 50% using ultrasound criteria [18–20]. Access-site complications and cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome (CHS) were defined as previously reported [18, 19]. Stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) were defined as previously reported; severe stroke included fatal and disabling events, mild stroke included nondisabling events, and myocardial infarction (MI) was defined as described in a previous report [19, 20]. The clinical endpoints were the combined risk of any stroke or death within 12 months.
13
Statistical analysis All data were analyzed using SPSS v. 11.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA), and P 80%) was similar between the SCS and TCS procedures (43.11% vs 47.30%). Patients who underwent the TCS procedure had a higher predilation rate (87.84% vs 67.66%, P
Data Loading...
