to assess the value and consequences of carotid artery stenting immediate and during short term follow-up. Methods: This prospective study was carried out in vascular surgery department at 6 October insurance hospital on 30 patients (22 males, 8 females) with a mean age of 65.5 years (45- 81years) suffered from carotid artery stenosis and were high risk patients. Subjects were scheduled to carotid artery stenting (CAS) during the period between August 2015 and December 2016 and followed up for one year Nearly all carotid lesions were in internal carotid artery (28 patients, 93.3%) and only 2 patients (6.7%) had common carotid artery lesions. 20/30 patients were symptomatic carotid stenosis while 10/30 patients were asymptomatic and refereed from cardiac unit before coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). The commonest clinical presentation was stroke(40%) followed by transient ischemic attack (TIA) (26.7%). Results: Technical success was achieved in all patients and all the procedures were performed using embolic protection devices. 3 patients (10%) developed stroke; one had intra operative stroke after stent deployment, one developed stroke at 6 month follow up by cerebral hemorrhage due to uncontrolled hypertension, the 3rd one stoke occurred during the 12th month follow up. Six cases (20%) developed TIA. Acute myocardial infarction (MI) occurred in 3 patients (10%); one was admitted to cardiac care and underwent coronary angiography while the other two cases died after massive MI. Two cases had intraoperative bradycardia and relived by atropine. Death occurred in one case 6 months after CABG. Conclusion: The management of carotid stenosis is complicated and has been studied for a long time. Stroke prevention without complications is the main goal of successful treatment. Risk– benefit assessment should be discussed with individual patients, and should be based on patient status, plaque characteristics and procedural risk, rather than on the argument between CEA and CAS. Although the data show CEA to be associated with fewer stroke events, there have been advancements in technology and training for CAS, resulting in comparable outcomes between the 2 procedures with considering that CAS is preferable than CEA in high surgical risk patients