Intervention versus standard medical treatment in patients with symptomatic occlusion of the internal carotid artery: A randomised oxygen-15 PET study

3Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this randomised pilot study was to investigate the haemodynamic effects measured by oxygen-15 positron emission tomography (PET) of interventional treatment consisting of either endarterectomy or endovascular treatment of stenosed cerebropetal arteries, or tapering of antihypertensive medication in comparison with standard medical treatment alone in patients with symptomatic internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion. Methods: Twenty-three patients with symptomatic ICA occlusion underwent PET scanning at baseline and after 3 months. Twelve patients were randomised to intervention (either endarterectomy or endovascular treatment of stenosed cerebropetal arteries, or tapering of antihypertensive medication) and 11 to standard medical treatment alone. Primary outcome was a change in cerebral blood flow (CBF), cerebral blood volume (CBV) and/or oxygen extraction fraction (OEF) after 3 months measured by PET. Results: There were no differences in changes in CBF, CBV or OEF between the two groups. Only patients with compromised perfusion at presentation showed a borderline significant increase in CBF of 2.8 mL/min/100 mL (95% confidence interval 0.0 to 5.7) after intervention (n = 7). Conclusion: This pilot study shows that in patients with symptomatic ICA occlusion, oxygen-15 PET did not detect differences in improvement of CBF, CBV or OEF between interventional and standard treatment. © 2013 Persoon et al.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Persoon, S., van Berckel, B. N. M., Bremmer, J. P., Boellaard, R., Algra, A., de Borst, G. J., … Klijn, C. J. M. (2013). Intervention versus standard medical treatment in patients with symptomatic occlusion of the internal carotid artery: A randomised oxygen-15 PET study. EJNMMI Research, 3(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-219X-3-79

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free