Salta al contenuto principale
Passa alla visualizzazione normale.


Cognitive performance in elderly patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting: A twelve-month follow-up study

  • Autori: Feliziani, FT; Polidori, MC; De Rango, P; Mangialasche, F; Monastero, R; Ercolani, S; Raichi, T; Cornacchiola, V; Nelles, G; Cao, P; Mecocci, P
  • Anno di pubblicazione: 2010
  • Tipologia: Articolo in rivista (Articolo in rivista)
  • OA Link:


Background: It is still a matter of debate if and to what extent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) impair cognitive functioning in the elderly. Methods: We conducted a nonrandomized clinical trial on subjects with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis comparing CEA (n = 28; 24 males and 4 females; 72.6 ± 5.8 years old) with CAS (n = 29; 17 males and 12 females; 75.1 ± 5.7 years old). Cognition, mood and functional status were evaluated by a broad spectrum of tests performed on the day prior to carotid reopening as well as 3 and 12 months after. Results: No significant differences in scores on cognitive tests including the Babcock story recall test and Rey's auditory verbal learning test (memory), category naming test (verbal fluency), trail-making test parts A and B (attention and executive function) and controlled oral word association test (executive functioning) were observed 3 and 12 months after carotid reopening independent of the technique used. Only scores on the copy drawing test (visuospatial and constructional abilities) slightly but significantly (p < 0.05) worsened in the CAS group 12 months after the intervention. No significant differences between the CEA and CAS groups were detected regarding mood and functional status after 3 and 12 months. Conclusions: CEA and CAS seem to be safe procedures in elderly patients in terms of cognitive, mood and functional status in the short and long term. CAS might be preferred for the shorter hospital stay, but further studies with a larger number of old and oldest old subjects with a longer follow-up are needed to better understand the cost-effectiveness of both treatments.