1 / 16

e-mail: giovanni.torsello@sfh-muenster.de home page: gefaesschirurgie-muenster.de

Intraindividual results of CAS and CEA - is it the patient rather than the technology that predicts good or bad results? Giovanni Torsello Münster. e-mail: giovanni.torsello@sfh-muenster.de home page: www.gefaesschirurgie-muenster.de.

trilby
Download Presentation

e-mail: giovanni.torsello@sfh-muenster.de home page: gefaesschirurgie-muenster.de

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Intraindividual results of CAS and CEA - is it the patient rather than the technology that predicts good or bad results? Giovanni Torsello Münster e-mail: giovanni.torsello@sfh-muenster.de home page: www.gefaesschirurgie-muenster.de

  2. Results of CAS vs. CEA are well documented in the literature Can these results be extrapolated to the general population ?

  3. Limitations of CRT‘real life’ data ? • – Real world patients and practice ? • limited inclusion/exclusion criteria • most patients refuse participation • • different procedural specifications and expertise • • patients with different risk profiles

  4. Aims of our study • obtain more reliable results of both methods • evaluation of both techniques in the same patient • reduce patient-related factors

  5. Materials and Methods • Retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data • High volume center (over 2300 subjects consecutively treated between 2000 and 2011) • Long-term follow-up of 75 patients treated with both techniques • Annual visits through 11 years

  6. S

  7. Hemispheric symptoms

  8. Hemispheric strokeafter CEA and CAS

  9. Freedom of stroke after CEA and CAS

  10. Freedom of restenosis after CAS and CEA

  11. Limitations of the unprecedented study • Small sample number (CEA and CAS in the same patient is rare; 3.5%) • Lack of randomization • Different follow-up times (CEA > CAS) • Different age at treatment (CAS > CEA)

  12. Take homemessages Intraindividual comparison offers some advantages that remedy bias connected to RCTs 1 After 5 years of follow-up, stroke and restenosis rates are low after CEA and CAS in a high-volume center 2 3 Individually taylored therapy is probably the key of success

  13. Thank you ! home page: www.gefaesschirurgie-muenster.de Universitätsklinik Münster St. Franziskushospital Münster

More Related