Endovascular treatment for restenosis of carotid venous bypass graft: a clinical case report.
Journal
Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis
ISSN: 2531-6745
Titre abrégé: Acta Biomed
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101295064
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 04 2021
30 04 2021
Historique:
received:
13
05
2020
accepted:
13
05
2020
entrez:
4
5
2021
pubmed:
5
5
2021
medline:
29
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Restenosis after open carotid surgery (OCS) represents an issue that experts are very often facing nowadays, both after carotid endoarterectomy(CEA) and carotid bypass(CB). Yet, even if from one side carotid artery stenting (CAS) is currently recommended by most guidelines as treatment of choice for carotid restenosis after CEA, on the other side little is known regarding the best treatment of restenosis after CB. This clinical case report is aimed to empathize the endovascular treatment as an effective therapeutic option for restenosis after OCS. A 75-year-old woman with severe comorbidities was admitted to our Unit for left carotid bypass graft restenosis. One year earlier, the patient had been treated with left carotid bypass grafting in saphenous vein for infectious complications occurred after CEA for symptomatic left carotid stenosis. The patient underwent a carotid Duplex ultrasonography scan (DUS) which showed a hemodynamically significant left carotid venous graft stenosis with peak systolic velocity of 315 cm/sec; in order to assess the grade of the stenosis a computed tomography angiography confirmed the presence of a significant narrowing of left carotid graft. A carotid artery angiography was performed after 20days, reconfirming the presence of a significant left carotid graft stenosis and was successfully treated with 7x40mm self-expanding stent. The patient had an uneventful post-procedural course and was discharged the day after. After six months, the patient underwent a carotid DUS in our outpatient clinic which confirmed the overall graft and stent patency. CAS represents a feasible therapeutic option for carotid restenosis in patients treated after CB. This clinical case demonstrates that CAS can be performed with acceptable risks and good early results.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Restenosis after open carotid surgery (OCS) represents an issue that experts are very often facing nowadays, both after carotid endoarterectomy(CEA) and carotid bypass(CB). Yet, even if from one side carotid artery stenting (CAS) is currently recommended by most guidelines as treatment of choice for carotid restenosis after CEA, on the other side little is known regarding the best treatment of restenosis after CB. This clinical case report is aimed to empathize the endovascular treatment as an effective therapeutic option for restenosis after OCS.
METHODS
A 75-year-old woman with severe comorbidities was admitted to our Unit for left carotid bypass graft restenosis. One year earlier, the patient had been treated with left carotid bypass grafting in saphenous vein for infectious complications occurred after CEA for symptomatic left carotid stenosis. The patient underwent a carotid Duplex ultrasonography scan (DUS) which showed a hemodynamically significant left carotid venous graft stenosis with peak systolic velocity of 315 cm/sec; in order to assess the grade of the stenosis a computed tomography angiography confirmed the presence of a significant narrowing of left carotid graft. A carotid artery angiography was performed after 20days, reconfirming the presence of a significant left carotid graft stenosis and was successfully treated with 7x40mm self-expanding stent.
RESULTS
The patient had an uneventful post-procedural course and was discharged the day after. After six months, the patient underwent a carotid DUS in our outpatient clinic which confirmed the overall graft and stent patency.
CONCLUSION
CAS represents a feasible therapeutic option for carotid restenosis in patients treated after CB. This clinical case demonstrates that CAS can be performed with acceptable risks and good early results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33944833
doi: 10.23750/abm.v92iS1.9811
pmc: PMC8142786
doi:
Types de publication
Case Reports
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2021149Références
J Vasc Surg. 2001 Mar;33(3):495-503
pubmed: 11241118
Int J Stroke. 2007 Feb;2(1):27-39
pubmed: 18705984
Surgery. 2015 Jun;157(6):1166-73
pubmed: 25840718
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018 Jan;55(1):3-81
pubmed: 28851594
Ann Surg. 2015 Mar;261(3):598-604
pubmed: 24979605
J Vasc Surg. 2017 Jun;65(6):1664-1672
pubmed: 28268107
J Vasc Surg. 2003 Nov;38(5):1031-7; discussion 1038
pubmed: 14603212
J Vasc Surg. 2003 Nov;38(5):1025-30
pubmed: 14603211
J Vasc Surg. 1998 Apr;27(4):788-90
pubmed: 9576101
J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2016 Apr;57(2):137-44
pubmed: 26635122
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011 Dec;42(6):742-50
pubmed: 21889369
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009 Mar;37(3):272-8
pubmed: 19111479
Semin Vasc Surg. 2007 Dec;20(4):259-66
pubmed: 18082843
J Vasc Surg. 1989 Dec;10(6):662-8; discussion 668-9
pubmed: 2585655