Treatment results of carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting for patients with radiation-induced carotid stenosis
10.4174/astr.2022.103.2.112
- Author:
Jihee KANG
1
;
Shin-Young WOO
;
Shin-Seok YANG
;
Yang-Jin PARK
;
Dong-Ik KIM
;
Pyoung JEON
;
Gyeong-Moon KIM
;
Young-Wook KIM
Author Information
1. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Inha University Hospital, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
- Publication Type:ORIGINAL ARTICLE
- From:Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research
2022;103(2):112-118
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Purpose:Exposure to ionizing radiation over the head and neck accelerates atherosclerotic changes in the carotid arteries. Owing to the characteristics of radiation-induced carotid stenosis (RICS), the results regarding the optimal revascularization method for RICS vary. This study compared treatment outcomes between carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) in RICS.
Methods:This was a single-center retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent CEA or CAS for carotid stenosis. RICS was defined as carotid stenosis (>50%) with the prior neck irradiation for cancer treatment on either side.For the analyses, demographics, comorbid conditions, carotid lesion characteristics based on imaging studies, surgical complications, neurologic outcomes, and mortality during the follow-up period were reviewed. To compare CEA and CAS results in RICS, a 1:1 propensity score matching was applied.
Results:Between November 1994 and June 2021, 43 patients with RICS and 2,407 patients with non-RICS underwent carotid revascularization with CEA or CAS. RICS had fewer atherosclerotic risk factors and more frequent severe carotid stenosis and contralateral carotid occlusions than non-RICS. CAS was more commonly performed than CEA (22.9% vs.77.1%) for RICS due to more frequent unfavorable carotid anatomy (0 vs. 16.2%). Procedure-related complications were more common in the CEA than in the CAS. However, there was no significant difference in neurologic outcomes and restenosis rates between CEA and CAS in RICS.
Conclusion:Considering its lesion characteristics and cumulative incidence, RICS requires more attention than non-RICS.Although CAS has broader indications for RICS, CEA has shown acceptable results if selectively performed.
