Proximal Embolic Protection Devices Research Articles

Safety of Tailored Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting for Symptomatic Elderly Patients: A Single Center Observational Study

Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in symptomatic elderly patients (≥70 years old) may have a high periprocedural stroke rate. This study was performed to examine whether tailored TFCAS for symptomatic elderly patients is as safe as that for symptomatic nonelderly patients. The subjects were 185 patients with symptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis. Tailored TFCAS including postoperative management was performed based on preoperative examinations of vascular anatomy, plaque imaging, platelet aggregation activity, and cerebral hemodynamic impairment. The major 30-day perioperative stroke rates were examined. The patients included 51 (27.6%) <70 (group Y) and 134 (72.4%) ≥70 (group E) years old. Group E included significantly more cases with an elongated aortic arch, tortuous target lesion, and longer plaques (all P < 0.05). Among all cases, 181 (97.8%) procedures were performed as per preoperative planning. Group E had more frequent use of a proximal embolic protection device and a closed-cell or dual-layer micromesh stent (all P < 0.05). Seven patients (3.8%) had major stroke. Rates of major ischemic stroke (2.0% vs. 3.0%, P= 1.00) and intracranial hemorrhage (2.0% vs. 0.8%, P= 0.48) were low and did not differ significantly between groups Y and E. Symptomatic elderly patients have several unfavorable factors. However, tailored TFCAS for each patient based on preoperative examinations in symptomatic elderly patients may be as safe as that in symptomatic nonelderly patients.

Head-to-head comparison of two embolic protection devices in carotid artery stenting

Abstract Introduction Embolic protection devices (EPD) have been developed to reduce the risk of distal embolization and have become ubiquitous in carotid interventions. There are two classes of EPD: distal filter EPD (f-EPD) and proximal EPD (p-EPD). However, the best device for carotid artery stenting (CAS) has yet to be established. Purpose We aimed to assess and compare the early prognosis between the f-EPD and p-EPD groups in patients undergoing CAS. Methods Single-center, retrospective study. Patients who underwent CAS from 2000 to 2022 were included. The composite of transient ischemic attack(TIA)/stroke and death at 24 hours and 30 days were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 28.0.1.1 software. Results A total of 436 patients were included (380 and 56 patients used f-EPD and p-EPD, respectively). The population's mean age (±SD) was 71,8 (±8,2) years, 74,8% men. There was a significant prevalence of arterial hypertension (88,3%), dyslipidemia (75,9%), diabetes (33,9%), and smoking background (25,9%). Regarding baseline clinical characteristics, arterial hypertension was more prevalent in the f-EPD group, with statistical significance (91,7% vs. 78,8%; p=0,003). Concerning the indications for carotid intervention, 16,1% of patients were asymptomatic but had severe stenosis, and 39,4% had neurological symptoms. In 41,9% of patients, the procedure was accomplished before cardiac surgery (coronary artery bypass graft or valvular surgery). Regarding the first 24 hours after the procedure, the combined endpoint of TIA/stroke or death occurred in 3,4% of patients in the f-EPD group and 3,6% in the p-EPD group, with no statistically significant difference (p=1,000). The incidence of TIA/stroke was also similar in both groups (3,2% and 3,6% in the f-EPD and p-EPD groups, respectively; no statistical difference was found; p=0,694). The early mortality rate was slightly lower in the f-EPD group (0,8%) compared with the p-EPD group (1,8%), though this difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0,424). During the 30-day follow-up, the combined endpoint of TIA/stroke or death occurred in 1,6% of patients in the f-EPD group and 1,8% in the p-EPD group, with no statistically significant difference (p=1,000). The incidence of TIA/stroke was lower in the f-EPD group (1,1%) compared to the p-EPD group (1,8%), however, no statistical difference was found (p=0,499). Regarding mortality rate, the incidence in the f-EPD group was 0,5%, in contrast with no events in the p-EPD group (statistical analysis not possible to compute). Conclusion In this cohort, no significant differences were found between the distal filter and proximal embolic protection devices in the risk of TIA/stroke and death at 24 hours and 30 days after carotid artery stenting. However, conclusions should be carefully drawn since the distal filter EPD was used more often than the proximal EPD, making direct comparisons challenging.

From surgical clamping to endovascular flow arrest/reversal: the concept behind the system.

Carotid artery lesions are frequently composed of friable, thrombotic, ulcerated and/or hemorrhagic materials which can embolize during surgical or endovascular interventions. The use of embolic protection devices (EPD) during carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been proven to be associated with a reduction of the embolic load. Many studies indicate that the clinical results of CAS are comparable with the best surgical series, when EPD are routinely applied. The proximal EPD work by interrupting or reversing the blood flow in the common carotid artery/internal carotid artery (CCA/ICA). Once established the endovascular flow arrest/reversal, these systems have the advantages of promoting a protected crossing of the lesion and blocking both macro-emboli and micro-emboli. Moreover, proximal neuroprotection implies no manipulation of the device in the distal ICA, neither during device deployment nor during device retrieval, and reduces the risk of arterial spasm, dissection, or intimal damage. The choice between transfemoral and transcervical proximal EPD should account for different factors: local availability, operator expertise, and patient characteristics including anatomical features precluding flow arrest/reversal (e.g., incomplete circle of Willis), femoral access (e.g., unfavorable aortic arch anatomy), or transcervical access (e.g., diseased CCA).

The safety and efficacy of the Mo.Ma system device for carotid artery stenting: A single-center experience from Taiwan.

BackgroundProximal protection devices, such as the Mo.Ma system provides better neurological outcomes than the distal filter system in the carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedure. This study first evaluated the safety and efficacy of the Mo.Ma system during CAS in a single tertiary referral hospital from Taiwan. The outcomes of distal vs. proximal embolic protection devices were also studied.MethodsA total of 294 patients with carotid artery stenosis who underwent the CAS procedure were retrospectively included and divided into two groups: 152 patients in the distal filter system group and 142 patients in the Mo.Ma system. The outcomes of interest were compared between the two groups. The factors contributing to occlusion intolerance (OI) in the Mo.Ma system were evaluated.ResultsThe procedure success rates were more than 98% in both groups. No major stroke occurred in this study. The minor stroke rates were 2.8% (4/142) and 4.6% (7/152) in the Mo.Ma system and filter system, respectively (p = 0.419). Patients with hypoalbuminemia significantly predicted the risk of stroke with an odds ratio of 0.08 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.01–0.68, p = 0.020] per 1 g/day of serum albumin in the filter group. A total of 12 patients developed OI in the Mo.Ma system (12/142, 8%). Low occlusion pressure predicted the occurrence of OI in the Mo.Ma group with the hazard ratios of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82–0.96) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.84–0.98) per 1 mmHg of occlusion systolic pressure (OSP) and diastolic pressure (ODP), respectively. We further indicated that patients with an OSP of ≥60 mmHg or an ODP of ≥44 mmHg could tolerate the procedure of occlusion time up to 400 s, while patients with an OSP of <49 mmHg or an ODP of <34 mmHg should undergo the procedure of occlusion time less than 300 s to prevent the occurrence of OI.ConclusionWe have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the Mo.Ma system during CAS in an Asia population. By reducing the occlusion time, our study indicated a lower risk of OI in the Mo.Ma system and proposed the optimal occlusion time according to occlusion pressure to prevent OI during the CAS procedure. Further large-scale and prospective studies are needed to verify our results.

Characteristics and In-Hospital Clinical Outcomes of the Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting: A single center experience

Objective: The aim of our study was to evaluate carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedures and in-hospital outcomes performed in our instutition. Materials and Methods: A total of 86 patients who underwent CAS between January 2019 and December 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Among these patients, 46 of the patients (53.5%) were symptomatic because of a history of transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke in the preceding 6 months, and the remain of the patients were asymptomatic (40 patients, 46.5%). The mean age of the patients was significantly lower in symptomatic group compared to asymptomatic group (65.5±10.7 vs 70.2±6.8, p=0.019). Predilatation was performed in 79 patients (91.9%). In 7 patients (8.1%) postdilatation was required due to insufficient opening. Only in 4 patient, both predilatation and postdilatation was performed during the procedure. In most of the patients (84 patients, 97.7%) distal embolic protection device (EPD) were used. Only in two patients (2.3%) proximal EPD were used. Technical success rate was 98.8% (85/86). In-hospital death and disabling stroke was not observed in any patients. TIA was observed in two patients. Conclusion: CAS is safe and effective treatment method in carotid artery stenosis with low complication rates in experienced centers. CAS is alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) especially in patients with high surgical risk.

Efficacy and safety of carotid artery stenting: Experience of a single center.

Moderate and severe carotid artery stenosis in the internal carotid artery causes 10% to 15% of all strokes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and short-term efficacy of carotid artery stenting (CAS) performed at a tertiary referral center. The records of patients who underwent CAS between January 2017 and May 2018 at a tertiary care center were analyzed retrospectively and a total of 145 patients were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 70.1±8.6 years, 75.2% of the study group was male, and 37.9% had hypertension. Of the patients evaluated, 81 (55.9%) were classified as symptomatic and 64 (44.1%) were classified as asymptomatic. A percutaneous coronary intervention was performed after CAS more often in symptomatic patients (38.9%), while it was observed at the same rate both before (25.9%) and after (25.9%) CAS in the asymptomatic group, but the difference between the groups was not statistically significant. A distal embolic protection device (EPD) was used in symptomatic patients (59.2%) and in the asymptomatic group (78.7%); however, a proximal EPD was used significantly more often in symptomatic patients (45.6%) compared with asymptomatic patients. No patient death was recorded while in hospital, and stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) development was observed in 5 (3.4%) patients. Stroke was seen in 2 patients (2.4%) and TIA in 3 patients (3.7%) in the symptomatic group; TIA or stroke was not seen in the asymptomatic group. The results of this study revealed that CAS was a safe and practical procedure with an acceptable complication rate. In the appropriate patients, experienced interventionists can achieve good results when aggressive risk modification is applied and an EPD and optimal medical therapy are used.

Impact of plaque dilation before carotid artery stent deployment

ObjectivePlaque stability is of utmost importance for stroke prevention in the perioperative period (within 24 hours) following carotid artery stenting (CAS). Although carotid plaque is entrapped between stent struts after stent deployment, postdilation can cause a scissoring effect on the plaque, increasing the risk of postprocedural embolic events due to plaque prolapse. Maximum carotid plaque dilation before stent deployment may reduce this risk. This study analyzed the effect of maximum dilation of the carotid plaque before stent deployment (max-pre-SD) or after stent deployment (post-SD) on macroscopic plaque debris, hemodynamic depression (HD), and immediate major adverse events. MethodsThis prospective nonrandomized multicenter study analyzed patients treated for carotid artery stenosis with CAS from January 2014 to August 2016. Clinical and morphologic characteristics and operative details were analyzed with logistic regression analysis for macroscopic debris and HD. The number of microembolic signals (MESs) was assessed by transcranial Doppler and analyzed. ResultsA total of 309 patients were enrolled and treated with standard CAS performed using a proximal occlusion cerebral embolic protection device; 149 received max-pre-SD and 160 were treated with post-SD. Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases. Macroscopic debris and HD were significantly different between the two groups in favor of max-pre-SD (P < .001). A significant difference in intraprocedural MESs between the groups was detected. Compared with post-SD, max-pre-SD significantly reduced mean MES counts (8.1% vs 68.1%; P < .001). Patients treated with post-SD had a significantly increased risk of MESs in the immediate postoperative period compared with patients treated with max-pre-SD (41.9% vs 1.3%; P < .001).This result was mainly due to the small number of events encountered. Patients treated with post-SD had a 12-fold increased risk of macroscopic debris collection (odds ratio [OR], 12.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.68-26.87; P < .001) and an 18 times increase in HD risk (OR, 17.80; 95% CI, 5.27-60.17; P < .001) compared with patients treated with max-pre-SD. The heterogeneous, mainly echolucent plaque type significantly highly increased the risk of macroscopic debris (OR, 78.45; 95% CI, 8.70-707.09; P < .001) while acting as a protective factor against HD (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.006-0.11; P < .001) along with echogenic or echolucent complex plaques with irregular surface plaque types (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.031-0.336; P < .001). No significant differences between groups (max-pre-SD group and post-SD) were detected in immediate major adverse events (minor stroke, 2.0% and 2.5% [P = .461]; major stroke, 0% and 0.6% [P = .334], respectively). ConclusionsMax-pre-SD seems to be a safe and feasible technical modification to the CAS procedure. Macroscopic debris, HD, and MESs are significantly reduced compared with CAS with post-SD. Further research with larger, randomized cohorts of patients is required to establish the superiority of this technical modification.

SINGLE AND MULTIPLE ISCHEMIC BRAIN MICROLESIONS AFTER CAROTID ARTERY STENTING

Aim. To identify most probable cardiovascular predictors of periprocedural ischemic brain microlesions after carotid artery stenting (CAS) accounting its presumable pathogenesis. Material and methods. 84 patients with carotid artery stenosis undergoing CAS in a specialized medical center were examined. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) magnetic resonance imaging was performed in all patients before and after intervention. Results. Among selected patients aged 40 to 83 years (mean age of 60.6Ѓ}3.9 years, male 80.95%) 39 (46.4%) patients had new ischemic brain microlesions after CAS, differently located. Among all patients (n=84) microlesion count correlated with age (γ=0.243; p<0.01), preprocedural hemoglobin level (γ=-0.278; p<0.01), systolic blood pressure (SBP) level before CAS (γ=0.190; p<0.05) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) level 1 hour after CAS (γ=-0.201; p<0.05). In patients with microlesions their count (n=39) correlated with SBP and DBP levels 15 min after CAS (γ=-0.370; p<0.01 and γ=-0.369; p<0.01, respectively), percentage of SBP and DBP levels decrease during CAS (γ=0.404; p<0.01 and γ=0.458; p<0.001, respectively), SBP level 24 h after CAS (γ=-0.272; p<0.05) and body mass index (γ=-0.260; p<0.05). Patients with multiple microlesions (n=25) differed from patients without lesions (n=45) older age (67.0 [64.0; 77.0] vs 64.0 [60.0; 70.0], p<0.05), lower preprocedural hemoglobin level (130.9Ѓ}14.5 vs 139.5Ѓ}13.6, p<0.01), lower percentage of smokers (32.0% vs 57.8%, p<0.05), previous ipsilateral stroke (36.0% vs 13.3%, p<0.05) and persistent periprocedural arterial hypotension (12.0% vs 2.2%, p<0.05). These patients with multiple microlesions had more significant DBP level decrease (17.0 [10.0; 25.0] vs 6.5 [1.3; 11.8], p<0.05) compared with patients with single lesions (n=14). In the group of patients with single brain microlesion, unstable (71.4% vs 40.0%, p<0.05) and calcified (64.3% vs 28.0%, p<0.05) atherosclerotic plaques were seen more often compared with patients with multiple lesions. Patients with single brain microlesion differed from patients without lesions greater frequency of calcified atherosclerotic plaques (64.3% vs 31.1%, p<0.05), usage of proximal embolic protection devices (21.4% vs 0.0% p<0.01) and predilatation (35.7% vs 13.3%, p<0.05), perioperative neurological symptoms (21.4% vs 4.4%, p<0.05, and higher SBP levels during 24 h after CAS (mean values 137-122 mm Hg vs 120-112 mm Hg, p<0.05). Conclusion. Single microlesion is associated with unstable or calcified plaques and CAS technical complexities. Multiple microlesions may be associated with periprocedural hemodynamic instability and cerebral hypoperfusion risk factors.

Proximal embolic protection versus distal filter protection versus combined protection in carotid artery stenting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Proximal embolic protection devices (P-EPD) and distal filters (DF) are used to prevent distal cerebral embolizations during carotid artery stenting (CAS). We compared their comparative effectiveness in regards to prevention of intraprocedural and periprocedural adverse events, including ischemic lesions (ipsilateral and contralateral), stroke, transient ischemic attacks (TIA) and death. We also compared the combination of the two neuroprotection strategies vs. a single strategy in regards to ischemic lesions and stroke. This study was performed according to the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines and eligible studies were identified through search of PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central. A meta-analysis was conducted with the use of a random effects model. The I-square statistic was used to assess for heterogeneity. Twenty-nine studies involving 16,307 patients were included. There was a significant reduction in ischemic lesions with the use of P-EPD among observational studies (RR: 0.66 [0.45-0.97]). There were no statistically significant differences for the other outcomes between the two treatment groups. There is a number of studies reporting outcomes on the comparison between P-EPD and DF for CAS. P-EDP can reduce distal embolization phenomena resulting into ischemic lesions when compared to DF based on the results from real-world studies. P-EPD was not superior however, in regards to periprocedural stroke, TIA and death. Further studies are anticipated to provide a clear answer to this debate.

Safety Outcome of Carotid Artery Stenting in Long Carotid Lesion with Proximal versus Distal Embolic Protection Devices (P3.077)

Safety Outcome of Carotid Artery Stenting in Long Carotid Lesion with Proximal versus Distal Embolic Protection Devices (P3.077)

Safety Outcomes Using a Proximal Protection Device in Carotid Stenting of Long Carotid Stenoses

Background: Embolic protection devices can prevent atherosclerotic emboli during carotid stenting. Newer proximal protection devices reverse flow in the internal carotid artery (ICA), leading to reduction in perioperative microemboli. The risk of stroke is high for carotid stenting of ICA lesions with a length >10 mm and/or angiographic string sign. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the safety outcomes of proximal embolic protection device usage in this high-risk group. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent carotid stenting procedures with proximal embolic protection devices at a tertiary care center. High-risk features for adverse events with carotid stenting were identified. Peri- and postprocedural outcomes were recorded. We further compared outcomes in patients with a carotid stenosis length >10 mm to those with shorter stenosis. Results: From January 2011 to December 2014, we included 27 patients; 96.3% were symptomatic and 3.7% were asymptomatic. There was a stent placement technical success rate of 100%. No major stroke or coronary events were recorded. One minor stroke event developed in one patient. A carotid lesion length >10 mm and/or angiographic string sign was noted in 21/27 patients, with an average lesion length of 14.4 mm. One patient (4.8%) in this group developed a minor stroke event. Neither a coronary nor a major stroke event was recorded in this group. There was no significant difference in the complication rate between the long lesion and the control group. Conclusion: In our patient cohort, it was found that a proximal embolic protection device is safe for patients with carotid stenosis, including those with a carotid lesion length >10 mm and/or angiographic string sign.

Safety of Slender 5Fr Transradial Approach for Carotid Artery Stenting With a Novel Nitinol Double-Layer Micromesh Stent

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of performing percutaneous carotid stent implantation with a newly designed double-layer stent using transradial slender 5Fr techniques. We recruited 10 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous carotid stenting using nitinol double-layer micromesh (Roadsaver) stents. Mean age of patients was 66 years. Seven patients had ≥2 high-risk criteria according to SAPPHIRE classification. Indication was neurologic symptoms in 7 and severe lesion without symptoms in 3 cases. Type 2 aortic arch was present in 8 patients and type 1 in 2 patients. Access was right radial artery in 9 cases and right ulnar artery in 1 case. Right carotid artery was stented in 4 cases and left carotid artery in 6 cases. Embolic protection device (EPD) was used in 6 cases. Nine stents were successfully delivered using 5Fr destination sheath (n = 7) or shuttle sheath (n = 2), and 1 was implanted using Mo-Ma 8Fr proximal EPD. Procedural success was obtained in all cases with only 1 case of temporary vasospasm due to distal EPD. Total procedural time was 21 minutes (13 to 30 minutes) with filter time of 5 ± 1 minutes. Fluoroscopy time was 8 minutes (5 to 12 minutes) and contrast volume was 150 ml (100 to 200 ml). Hospital stay was 1 ± 1 day with 4 patients discharged on the same day of the procedure. Using right transradial approach and slender 5Fr techniques, this new double-layer micromesh stent can be implanted in left and right carotid arteries with promising results.

Carotid artery stenting: current role of proximal neuroprotection and technical advancements in stroke prevention

For more than 50 years, carotid endarterectomy has been considered the gold standard therapy to prevent stroke in patients with carotid artery disease. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged in the last 15 years as minimally invasive alternative to surgery, especially in patients at high surgical risk. Recent randomized trials have challenged this concept reporting a relatively high incidence rate (4–6%) of post-CAS neurological adverse events. The aim of this study is to evaluate the current role of CAS in all-comers with advanced carotid disease, managed with mandatory proximal neuroprotection in a high-volume centre. From our database, the last 393 consecutive patients, from January 2011 to August 2013, undergoing CAS under proximal neuroprotection were analysed (mean age 72 ± 8 years). Indications included symptomatic stenoses ≥60% ( n = 87; 22%) and asymptomatic stenoses ≥80% ( n = 306; 78%). In an intention-to-treat approach, CAS success rate was 100%. The in-hospital all stroke/death rate was 1% (minor stroke 1%, major stroke 0%, and death 0%), and the rate of myocardial infarction was 0.3%. The minor stroke rate was 2.3% in symptomatic patients and 0.7% in asymptomatic patients. Carotid artery stenting performed in a high experience centre with the use of proximal embolic protection device is safe and has a low incidence rate of stroke.

Predictors of carotid occlusion intoleranceduring proximal protectedcarotid arterystenting.

The aim of this study was to identify predictors of occlusion intolerance (OI) developing during proximal protected carotid artery stenting (CAS). The use of proximal embolic protection devices, such as endovascular occlusion, during CAS has beendemonstrated to be particularly safe and effective. However, endovascular occlusion can expose the ipsilateral hemisphere to hypoperfusion and produce transient neurological symptoms (OI). From March 2010 to March 2012, 605 consecutive patients underwent proximal protected CAS at our institution. To identify independent predictors of OI, a multivariate logistic regression model was developed that included all patients' clinical/angiographic and procedural characteristics. OI developed in a total of 184 patients (30.4%). Compared with patients in whom OI did not develop, those who experienced OI had lower occlusion pressure (OP) (42.3 ± 12.7 mm Hg vs. 61.9 ± 15.4 mmHg, p< 0.001). Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that OP was the most consistent predictor of OI with a C-statistic of0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82 to 0.88) with best cutoff being≤40 mmHg (sensitivity, 68.5%; specificity,93.3%). By logistic regression analysis, the most powerful independent predictor of OI developing was an OP≤40mmHg (odds ratio: 33.2, 95% CI: 19.1 to 57.7) and the most powerful clinical predictor of such OP was the presence ofcontralateral internal carotid artery occlusion (odds ratio: 3.1, 95% CI: 1.5 to 6.2). OI may occur in as many as one-third of the patients undergoing proximal protected CAS. This event ismore common in those patients with an OP≤40 mmHg. Patients presenting with concomitant occlusion of the contralateral internal carotid artery more frequently have an OP≤40 mmHg.

Operator’s Experience Is the Most Efficient Embolic Protection Device for Carotid Artery Stenting

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a reputable and safe alternative therapeutic option to surgical endarterectomy for treatment of obstructive extracranial carotid atherosclerosis.1 Because of the routine use of cerebral embolic protection devices (EPDs), post-CAS neurological complications have decreased substantially during the past years, and it is now accepted that the use of EPDs abates postprocedural stroke risk.1 Article see p 552 It has been speculated that a proximal EPD may offer more efficient neuroprotection because it is active before target lesion crossing, whereas distal EPDs must cross the lesion to establish neuroprotection.2 As of today, because of the small incidence of post-CAS neurological events, it is difficult to prove the superiority of one EPD compared with another on the basis of the ability to reduce clinically relevant neurological events. Diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI) is the most sensitive method to diagnose brain infarction at the early phase and is a major improvement compared with computed tomography.3,4 The use of DW-MRI has disclosed that besides clinically apparent postprocedural strokes, CAS, as any other cardiovascular intervention, is associated with the occurrence of new small clinically silent brain lesions on post-treatment DW-MRI.5 In past years, DW-MRI lesions have been valued as surrogate markers of brain embolism to evaluate the relative efficacy of EPDs. In this issue of Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions , de Castro-Afonso et al6 reported the results of a single center trial in which the authors evaluated the relative efficacy of proximal (n=21) and distal EPD (n=19) for CAS. They reported a significant reduction in the incidence (15.8% versus 47.6%; P =0.03), …

TCT-506 Predictors Of Carotid Clamping Intolerance During Carotid Artery Stenting With Proximal Embolic Protection Device. Results From An Italian Registry.

TCT-506 Predictors Of Carotid Clamping Intolerance During Carotid Artery Stenting With Proximal Embolic Protection Device. Results From An Italian Registry.

Carotid Artery Back Pressure and Cerebral Intolerance During the Occlusion in Carotid Stenting with the Mo.Ma Proximal Embolic Protection Device

OP-173 The Mo.Ma proximal embolic protection system provide neuroprotection during all phases of the carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedure. However, cerebral intolerance is not an infrequent occurrence with this approach. In most of the cases, intolerance is a benign phenomenon which resolves

Proximal embolic protection devices for high risk lesions/patients in "TARGET-CAS" registry of 1717 consecutive carotid artery stenting procedures

Proximal embolic protection devices for high risk lesions/patients in "TARGET-CAS" registry of 1717 consecutive carotid artery stenting procedures

Proteção cerebral em pacientes idosos durante implante de stent carotídeo

BACKGROUND: The type of cerebral protection used during carotid stenting in the elderly is controversial. Our objective was to evaluate the results of proximal and distal cerebral embolic protection devices (EPDs), in patients > 70 years through diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI). METHODS: Between 2008 and 2011, 60 patients with indication for carotid stenting were randomized to EPD with Mo.Ma® or Angioguard®, of which 26 patients were > 70 years of age. Results of DW-MRI performed before and 48 hours after the procedure were evaluated by an independent neurologist blinded to the type of EPD used. New ischemic lesions, their localization and size were analyzed. RESULTS: New cerebral ischemic lesions were found in 8/12 (66.7%) patients in the Mo.Ma® group and 12/14 (85.7%) patients in the Angioguard® group (P = 0.37). The vast majority of the lesions (> 90%) were ipsilateral to the treated artery in both groups and the size of the lesions was < 0.5 cm in most cases. The number of lesions per patient was lower with the Mo.Ma® device (median [variation]: 3 [1 to 8] lesions vs 15 [2 to 76] lesions; P < 0.001). All of the patients with more than 40 lesions were in the Angioguard® group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the use of EPDs (proximal or distal), new ischemic lesions were observed in both groups in elderly patients. A proportionately larger number of patients with Angioguard® had new ischemic lesions when compared to those with Mo.Ma®. The Mo.Ma® device seems to decrease the number of lesions per patient.

Proximal protectionとdistal filter protectionを併用した頚動脈ステント留置術

Proximal protectionとdistal filter protectionを併用した頚動脈ステント留置術