不符合NASCET纳入标准的高危有症状颈动脉狭窄患者的颈动脉成形支架置入术治疗

目的 探讨支架置入术治疗不符合NASCET纳入标准的高危有症状颈动脉狭窄患者的有效性和安全性.方法 对20例不符合NASCET纳入标准的高危有症状颈动脉狭窄患者进行颈动脉支架置入术治疗,其中男性12例,女性8例,年龄62～76岁(平均69岁),短暂性脑缺血发作11例,脑梗死9例.所有患者数字减影血管造影显示颈动脉狭窄程度＞70%(NA-SCET标准),其中-侧颈动脉重度狭窄9例(2例为内膜切除术后再狭窄),双侧颈动脉重度狭窄6例,一侧颈动脉闭塞伴对侧重度狭窄5例(1例为鼻咽癌放疗术后).所有患者均使用栓子保护装置,均采用预扩张和自膨式支架.结果 手术成功率100%,残余狭窄率均＜30%.所有患者术中均出现不同程度的一过性心率和血压下降,1例患者并发微栓子栓塞.其余患者围手术期内无缺血性卒中发作.术后复查颈动脉超声见狭窄显著改善.术后1个月和3个月随访均未发现同侧缺血性卒中和冠状动脉缺血事件.结论 颈动脉支架置入术创伤小、围手术期并发症少,治疗外科手术高危的有症状颈动脉狭窄是安全和有效的.     

脑保护装置下高龄重度颈动脉狭窄患者颈动脉支架成形术的有效性和安全性评价

目的评价脑保护装置下高龄重度颈动脉狭窄患者颈动脉支架成形术(CAS)的有效性及安全性。方法选择2009年1月—2012年1月在青岛大学医学院附属医院行CAS的高龄重度颈动脉狭窄患者37例,术中均应用脑保护装置,观察患者狭窄改善情况、围术期并发症发生情况、回收脑保护装置内脱落栓子情况,随访1年观察患者缺血性脑血管事件发生情况。结果 36例患者脑保护伞均一次性顺利通过狭窄段放置到位成功释放;术后残余狭窄率均30%,平均狭窄程度从(83.0±6.7)%降至(13.0±6.1)%;回收的脑保护装置中有26个发现脱落的组织碎片;围术期均未出现脑出血、症状性脑梗死、支架内血栓形成等严重并发症;37例患者随访1年,无短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)、卒中、死亡发生。结论脑保护装置下对高龄重度颈动脉狭窄患者行CAS成功率和安全性较高。     

Angioplasty and stenting of the extracranial carotid arteries

We performed percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting in patients with carotid artery stenosis to determine the efficacy of these techniques as an alternative to surgical endarterectomy. From April 1995 through July 1999, 315 carotid angioplasty procedures were performed (right, 151; left, 164) in 290 patients ranging in age from 40 to 93 years. Of these patients, 42% were symptomatic and 58% were asymptomatic. Twenty-five patients underwent bilateral procedures. The mean percentage of stenosis was 82.3%+/-8.7% SD. Angioplasty and stenting were performed without cerebral protection in 165 arteries and with protection in 150. Two methods of protection were used: the Theron technique and the PercuSurge Guardwire temporary occlusion and aspiration system. Balloon dilation and stent placement were successful in 289 patients; in the last patient, severe arterial tortuosity prevented catheterization and stenting. We observed 13 periprocedural neurologic complications due to ischemia (4.2%): 4 transient ischemic attacks (1.3%), 4 minor strokes (1.3%), and 5 major strokes (1.6%), including 1 death. At 6 months, 210 patients had a follow-up angiogram (155) or duplex ultrasound (55). There were 10 restenoses (4.7%), 1 of which was symptomatic and 2 of which showed mild compression of a Palmaz stent without marked stenosis. Primary and secondary 4-year patency rates were 96% and 99%, respectively. These results demonstrate acceptable mortality and morbidity rates related to carotid angioplasty and stenting. However, we found the risk of embolic stroke to be substantial. Cerebral protection may improve the results of carotid angioplasty and expand the indications for this procedure.     

Carotid artery stenting with filter protection

BACKGROUND: Neurologic events associated with distal embolization of debris during percutaneous carotid artery stenting complicate the procedure. Filter devices for cerebral protection potentially reduce the risk of embolization and other neurologic events. We studied the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of carotid artery stenting with a filter device. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between January 2002 and January 2003, a total of 22 consecutive patients (30 lesions) who had >70% diameter stenosis of the internal carotid artery underwent carotid artery stenting with filter protection at our institute. The mean age of the patients was 64+/-9 years; 14 were men and 8 women, and 15 had neurologic symptoms. A stent was successfully implanted in 29 lesions. It was possible to position a filter device in all the 29 lesions. Neurologic complications during the procedure, in the hospital, and at 30-day clinical follow-up occurred in 2 patients. One patient suffered a minor stroke that resolved within 24 hours. None of the patients had a major embolic stroke. There was one death from intracerebral hemorrhage related to hyperperfusion and the use of a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: Filter protection during carotid artery stenting seems technically feasible, safe, and effective. In the present study, the incidence of embolic neurologic events was low.     

Nonsurgical carotid revascularization

Carotid endarterectomy is a well-established treatment of improving the carotid luminal diameter and preventing strokes, and the indications and complications are well-defined. Carotid angioplasty and stent placements are relatively newer ways of treating carotid artery stenosis. In certain contexts, they may have some advantages over carotid endarterectomy. However, the success rates, morbidity, and mortality associated with these procedures are less well characterized. In earlier comparative studies, the incidence of ipsilateral stroke rate was higher with angioplasty, but in later studies, this trend is reversing. Angioplasty may also have an edge in specific situations like patients with coexisting significant coronary arterial disease, contralateral carotid artery occlusion, and in instances when the narrowing is long and at multiple sites. Protective devices like distal occlusion balloon and filter protection devices may reduce the incidence of stroke. We are still awaiting the results of some major randomized head-to-head trials comparing carotid endarterectomy and stenting.     

Carotid angioplasty and stenting under protection. State of the art

A carotid stenosis is responsible for about 30% of strokes occurring. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is considered to be the gold standard treatment of a carotid stenosis. Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is emerging as a new alternative treatment for a carotid artery stenosis, but the risk of neurological complications and brain embolism remain the major drawback to this procedure. So as to reduce the risk, we need: good indications, good patient and lesion selection; correct techniques; brain protection devices (cerebral protection devices should be routinely used and are mandatory for any procedure. Three types of protection devices are available: filters are the most commonly used. Nevertheless, all protection devices have limitations and cannot prevent from embolic events. However neurological complications can be reduced by 60%. New protection devices will be discussed); good choice of the stent and correct implantation (all stents are not equivalent and have different geometrical effects); pharmacological adjuncts; good team. Indications are well accepted for high-risk patients and recent studies have shown that CAS has superior short-term outcomes than CEA in this group of patients. Indications for low-risk and asymptomatic patients are controversial. New selection criteria have to be discussed. But there are enough reported data to conclude that CAS is also not inferior to CEA in low-risk and asymptomatic patients. In our series of 844 procedures, without protection (n = 187) 30-day death and stroke rate was 3.7% and with protection (n = 657) 1% (1.3% for symptomatic patients, 0.9% for asymptomatic patients, 1.4% in high-risk patients, 0.4% in low-risk patients). CAS under protection is the standard of care and is maybe becoming the gold standard treatment of a carotid stenosis at least in some subgroups of patients.     

Percutaneous treatment for carotid stenosis

Stroke is the leading cause of serious long-term disability in the United States. A substantial portion of strokes are caused by atherosclerotic carotid artery disease. The conventional risk factors for coronary atherosclerosis are also responsible for carotid atherosclerosis. Carotid stenosis is encountered in medical practice in either symptomatic or asymptomatic states. In symptomatic patients, medical management with antiplatelet agents does not provide adequate protection against stroke. Carotid endarterectomy can help reduce the risk of a subsequent stroke. Asymptomatic patients with severe carotid stenosis can also benefit from surgical intervention if endarterectomy can be performed at a low operative risk. In recent years, percutaneous carotid stenting using self-expanding stents has become popular for the treatment of carotid stenosis. Although this initial experience has been reported from a high-risk patient population, the results are encouraging, with acceptable periprocedural stroke rates. Moreover, emboli protection devices, modern adjuvant pharmacotherapy, and modern self-expanding stents were not utilized in these studies. With rapidly expanding technology and advances in interventional pharmacology, improvement of clinical outcome is likely. Table 3 summarizes current recommendations for carotid stenting based on a panel of cardiologists, radiologists, and vascular surgeons. At this stage, randomized trials to compare endarterectomy with carotid stenting are underway. Cautious optimism is necessary until the optimal equipment, emboli protection devices, and adjuvant pharmacotherapies are fully investigated. Until then, carotid stenting should be restricted to high-risk candidates for carotid endarterectomy, including patients with severe cardiac comorbidities, previous neck surgeries or radiation, restenosis after endarterectomy, or other technical contraindications for surgery.     

The treatment of carotid artery bifurcation stenoses with systematic stenting: experience of first 100 consecutive cardiological procedures

Carotid endarterectomy still represents the gold standard treatment of carotid artery bifurcation stenosis but percutaneous angioplasty with stenting is rapidly growing as a non-invasive alternative. In this paper we report the results of systematic application of carotid stenting performed in a cardiological setting, particularly as regards clinical management of patients and technical approach. One-hundred (100) procedures of carotid artery stenting (CAS) on 94 consecutive patients, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, with a carotid stenosis > 70%, were performed over a period of 30 months. The technical approach was directly derived from coronary angioplasty with use of large lumen guiding catheters, 0.014 in. intravascular guidewires and distal protection devices usually employed in coronary interventions. In 3 cases, a post-carotid endarterectomy restenosis and in 97 cases, a de-novo lesion, were treated respectively; in 71 cases, the degree of stenosis was 71-89% and in 29 cases, 90-99%. Cerebral protection was obtained with a distal to the lesion endovascular filter in 63 cases. Immediate technical success, i.e. residual stenosis of the treated vessel < 30% and no significant pathologic acceleration of blood flow (< 1.5 m/sec) at the Doppler ultrasound evaluation, was achieved in all procedures (100%). Ninety-six (96) procedures were totally uncomplicated; in-hospital cerebral complications were 1 TIA, 2 minor and 1 major strokes; at 30-day follow-up one additional major stroke occurred. Despite a particularly high incidence of comorbidities, neither unfavorable cardiological complications nor neurologic deaths were reported. Systematic CAS is a feasible treatment of the carotid artery bifurcation stenosis with high procedural success and low perioperative and short term complications. Its performance in a cardiological setting can combine satisfying procedural results and potentially successful handling of cardiovascular complications.     

Intravascular ultrasound identification of intraluminal embolic plaque material during carotid angioplasty with stenting.

INTRODUCTION: Carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS) has evolved as a viable method for treating patients at high risk for carotid endarterectomy. Strokes complicating CAS are most commonly caused by the liberation and distal embolization of embolic material from plaque during the procedure. METHODS: CAS with distal embolic protection (DEP) was performed using the assistance of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in a 68-year-old man with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Evaluation of the plaque pretreatment was performed using virtual histology software. IVUS evaluation was also performed after prestent angioplasty, stenting, and poststent angioplasty. RESULTS: Initial degree of angiographic stenosis was 78.9%. Final degree of stenosis was 15.7%. By IVUS, stenosis by minimum lumen diameter and minimum lumen area were 75.6% and 93.4% pretreatment, respectively, and 42.2% and 47.1% posttreatment, respectively. An intraluminal lesion was noted in the distal aspect of the stent after poststent angioplasty but before DEP device removal. Ultrasonographic characteristics of the intraluminal defect were consistent with ruptured plaque material. Angiographic runs failed to demonstrate the lesion. A repeat IVUS run performed approximately 10 min later failed to depict the lesion, suggesting that distal embolization had occurred. Embolic material was noticed in the DEP device after removal. The patient did not experience any ischemic neurological symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: IVUS can identify intraluminal plaque material, which may be a precursor for embolism and delayed ischemic events after CAS. IVUS may allow for treatment before distal embolization of plaque material. Virtual histology IVUS software may help to identify carotid lesions at higher risk for significant embolization during CAS.     

Interventional Management of Asymptomatic Extracranial Carotid Stenosis

Carotid artery stenosis is a major risk factor for stroke and transient ischemic attack. Although carotid endarterectomy is the established gold standard for carotid revascularization, carotid artery angioplasty and stenting (CAS)—proven by large randomized clinical trials and rigorous registries and supported by improving stent designs, embolic protection, and increasing neurointerventionalist experience—is developing into a safer and more efficacious method of stroke prevention. Today, protected CAS is approved for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with severe carotid stenosis with high surgical risk. We reviewed recently published data regarding new developments in the use of protected CAS, particularly in patients with carotid stenosis who are either asymptomatic or at low surgical risk.     

Difficult retrieval of the EPI Filterwire with a 5 French FR4 coronary catheter following carotid stenting.

Carotid angioplasty and stenting with an embolic protection device is emerging as a reasonable alternative to carotid endarterectomy in high-risk patients. The deployment and retrieval of these devices, however, can be problematic. We describe a case where a 5 Fr FR4 coronary catheter was used to retrieve an EPI Filterwire device following carotid stenting.     

Neuroprotection during carotid artery stenting using the GORE flow reversal system: 30‐day outcomes in the EMPiRE Clinical Study

Background : Each of the embolic protection devices used in carotid artery stenting (CAS) has advantages and disadvantages. The prospective, multicenter, single‐arm EMPiRE Clinical Study investigated a proximally placed device (GORE Flow Reversal System) that provides distal neuroprotection during CAS by reversing blood flow in the internal carotid artery, thereby directing emboli away from the brain. Methods : The study evaluated 30‐day outcomes in 245 pivotal high‐surgical‐risk patients (mean age, 70 years; 32% symptomatic; 16% ≥80‐years old) with carotid stenosis who underwent CAS using the flow reversal system. The primary endpoint was a major adverse event (MAE; stroke, death, myocardial infarction, or transient ischemic attack) within 30 days of CAS. The MAE rate was compared with an objective performance criterion (OPC) derived from CAS studies that included embolic protection. Results : The MAE rate was 4.5% (11 patients; P = 0.002 compared with the OPC). The stroke and death rate was 2.9%. No patient had a major ischemic stroke. Six patients (2.4%) had intolerance to flow reversal. The death and stroke rates in the symptomatic, asymptomatic, and octogenarian subgroups were 2.6, 3, and 2.6%, respectively, meeting American Heart Association guidelines for carotid endarterectomy. Conclusion : The stroke and death rate in this study was among the lowest in CAS trials. The results indicate that the flow reversal system is safe and effective when used for neuroprotection during CAS and that it provides benefits in a broad patient population. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Reversed blood flow during internal carotid artery stenting using Parodi Anti-Emboli System--progress in protection against cerebral stroke

Carotid artery stenosis is one of the main causes of stroke. Nowadays two techniques for treating carotid stenosis are available - surgical endarterectomy and percutaneous angioplasty combined with stent implantation at the site of stenosis. Cerebral protection devices during internal carotid stenting significantly decrease the incidence of periprocedural complications, however, during the introduction of protective devices the cerebral blood flow remains unprotected. Therefore, the quest for a system specifically protecting cerebral flow during the whole procedure is still underway. Temporary reversal of carotid flow during the procedure using the Parodi Anti-Emboli System seems a viable solution. The present study describes the first two patients who underwent internal carotid artery stenting using this technique in our institution.     

Carotid artery stenting with distal filter protection: single-center experience in high-surgical-risk patients

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an efficient alternative procedure for the treatment of high-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The use of cerebral protection systems might decrease procedural risk of stroke and death. We report our initial experience with protected carotid stenting in high-risk patients with severe carotid artery disease. From January 2006 until July 2008 we routinely performed CAS using a distal filter protection device in 65 consecutive high-surgical-risk patients with 72 high-grade carotid stenoses. Technical success rate was 97.2%. Neurologic periprocedural complications included two transient ischemic attacks and one major stroke. Three filter-related complications were managed without negative results to the patients. The overall in-hospital and 30-days MACE rate was 1.5%, 3.6% in symptomatic patients and 0% in asymptomatic patients. In our series of high-risk patients, CAS with the use of a distal filter protection system was safe and effective with a low incidence of periprocedural complications.     

Carotid stenting with a new system for distal embolic protection and stenting in high-risk patients: the carotid revascularization with ev3 arterial technology evolution (CREATE) feasibility trial.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of carotid artery revascularization using a new system for carotid stenting and distal embolic protection in 30 patients with severe carotid stenosis and high risk for carotid endarterectomy (Carotid Revascularization With ev3 Arterial Technology Evolution, or CREATE). Previous studies suggest that patients with carotid stenosis and serious comorbid cardiopulmonary and anatomic conditions are at high risk for carotid endarterectomy. All patients underwent percutaneous revascularization using the Protégé GPS self-expanding nitinol stent (ev3, Plymouth, MN) and the Spider distal embolic protection system (ev3). In-hospital and 30-day outcomes were analyzed. High-risk features included age > 75 years (63%), left ventricular ejection fraction < 35% (20%), and restenosis after prior carotid endarterectomy (53%). Procedural success was 100%. In-hospital complications included severe vasovagal reactions in six patients (20%) and a popliteal embolus in one patient (3.3%), treated by successful embolectomy. During 30 days of follow-up, two patients (6.6%) experienced minor neurological deficits, including transient expressive aphasia that resolved without therapy in one patient and homonymous hemianopsia due to contralateral posterior circulation stroke in one patient. This study supports the feasibility of percutaneous carotid artery revascularization with the Protégé GPS self-expanding stent and Spider distal embolic protection system, which will be evaluated in a large multicenter pivotal trial (CREATE Pivotal Trial).     

Interventional therapy for carotid artery disease using angioplasty and stenting with embolic protection

Carotid artery angioplasty with stenting (CAS) has emerged as a viable alternative to endarterectomy for the treatment of occlusive vascular disease. Advances in endovascular techniques and the improvement of specialized stents have served to rapidly close the gap with the traditional gold standard surgery. Furthermore, the development of cerebral embolic protection devices has reduced the occurrence of distal embolization of atheromatous material during such interventions and has reduced periprocedural stroke rates considerably. Continued improvements in distal embolic protection have further improved the risk profile of CAS, and increased operator experience with these interventional procedures has also been shown to reduce periprocedural complication rates. Outcomes may continue to improve as more providers gain experience with the evolving endovascular device technology, and several prospective clinical trials are currently investigating the efficacy of CAS with embolization protection versus endarterectomy in different cohorts. This review will survey the background and current literature covering angioplasty and stenting for occlusive disease in the carotid arteries and discuss the current methods employed to prevent distal emboli during intervention.     

Percutaneous versus surgical revascularization for symptomatic carotid artery disease

Stroke is the third leading cause of death worldwide and the number one disease associated with permanent disability. In 2006, the estimated total cost of stroke in the United States was a staggering $60 billion. Significant stenosis of the internal carotid artery is responsible for 10% to 20% of all strokes, and current recommendations suggest that patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis undergo revascularization for stroke prevention or risk reduction. Since the 1950s, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been the dominant modality of revascularization. However, carotid artery angioplasty, introduced in the 1980s, and subsequent carotid artery stenting (CAS), have greatly improved in recent years and provide a viable alternative to CEA, particularly for certain high-risk patients. Encouraging results from clinical studies of CAS and CEA have played pivotal roles in shaping current practice guidelines. We review the published studies on CAS and discuss appropriate use of this procedure for symptomatic carotid artery disease.     

Feasibility of FiberNet® embolic protection system in patients undergoing angioplasty for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis

Objective : To evaluate the procedural safety and filter efficiency of Lumen Biomedical FiberNet® embolic protection system in conjunction with primary stenting of ostial atherosclerotic renal artery lesions. Background: There is limited data regarding the utility of distal embolic protection devices in renal artery angioplasty and stenting. Methods : Patients with angiographically severe (≥70%) renal artery stenosis were prospectively enrolled if one or more inclusion criteria met: resistant hypertension, progressive chronic kidney disease, unexplained heart failure, or flash pulmonary edema. Patients underwent renal artery angioplasty and stenting with utilization of the Lumen Biomedical FiberNet® EPS. The protection devices and aspirate were analyzed for degree of atheromatous particles. Procedural safety and clinical outcomes were assessed through 6 months. Results : Twenty patients were prospectively enrolled at five centers; average age 73.8 (±9.5) years, mean baseline eGFR 60.8 cm³ min^?1. Twenty‐five renal artery stenting procedures were performed. Device and procedural success were achieved in 100% of cases. All patients tolerated the procedure without any adverse events. Embolic debris was captured in all cases. Debris analysis of the distal protection system displayed an average post procedure atheroma area of 51.31 mm². There was no clinical evidence of peripheral atheroembolization through 30‐days follow‐up. No subjects progressed to temporary or permanent renal replacement therapy. Favorable trends in blood pressure control were observed at 6 months. Conclusion : The Lumen Biomedical FiberNet® embolic protection system is a safe and feasible method to prevent atheroembolization associated with angioplasty and stenting of renal artery ostial lesions. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

心脏直视手术前颈动脉支架术的初步探讨

目的 评估心脏疾病合并严重颈动脉狭窄患者于心脏直视手术前行颈动脉支架术预防围手术期缺血性卒中的有效性和安全性.方法 前瞻性队列研究,对心脏疾病合并严重颈动脉狭窄患者于心脏直视手术前行颈动脉支架术,评估颈动脉支架术至心脏直视术后30 d的终点事件(卒中、心肌梗死和死亡).结果 自2005年1月至2007年12月,本研究共连续入选42例患者.颈动脉支架技术成功率100%.远端栓塞防护装置使用率为97.6%(41/42).心脏直视手术包括:冠状动脉旁路移植术36例(85.7%),冠状动脉旁路移植术加瓣膜置换术5例(11.9%),瓣膜置换术1例(2.4%).自颈动脉支架术至心脏直视术后30 d的卒中率为2.4%(1/42),心肌梗死率为0%,死亡率为0%.结论 这一小样本前瞻性队列研究表明,心脏直视手术前行颈动脉支架术预防围手术期缺血性卒中安全有效,优于文献报告的分期颈动脉内膜剥脱术的结果,但由于本研究样本量小,需进一步研究验证.     

Carotid artery stenting in the presence of contralateral carotid occlusion: mind the hyperperfusion syndrome!

Stroke is the third cause of death in western countries and its complications lead to significant socio-economic problems related to the prolonged hospitalization and rehabilitation of patients with neurological lesions. Severe atherosclerotic lesions of the carotid artery are the main cause of stroke and transient ischemic attacks. Their incidence may reach 5-7% per year in patients with carotid artery stenosis > 70% with or without symptoms. Time-honored carotid endarterectomy is still regarded as the gold standard therapy for primary and secondary prevention of stroke. However, surgery is not free of complications and the rate of perioperative stroke ranges from 5.1 to 14.3%. A group of patients at a particularly high risk of stroke during surgical endarterectomy is represented by patients with significant carotid stenosis in the presence of an occluded contralateral artery. Indeed, carotid cross-clamping during operative surgery in the absence of an adequate collateral flow may result in a critical flow reduction during the operation and therefore increases the risk of periprocedural strokes. In the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy (NASCET) trial, the overall risk of stroke was 5.1%, whereas it increased up to 14.3% in patients with an occluded contralateral carotid artery. Recently, carotid stenting has been increasingly used as an endovascular technique for carotid revascularization, especially after the introduction of neuroprotection devices which improved the safety of the procedure. Therefore, it may be an attractive alternative to carotid endarterectomy, especially when the surgical risk is too high. We describe the immediate and late outcomes of 3 patients treated with carotid artery stenting in the presence of contralateral carotid occlusion.