Comparison of embolization protection device-specific technical difficulties during carotid artery stenting

BACKGROUND: Embolic protection devices (EPDs) consisting of an internal carotid artery (ICA) filter or balloon occlusion are typically used during carotid artery stenting (CAS). This study compares the technical difficulties encountered using these two types of EPD. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients undergoing CAS using a balloon occlusion EPD (balloon group: PercuSurge GuardWire) or filter EPD (filter group: Accunet, AngioGuard, or FilterWire). Complications were defined as minor stroke, National Institutes of Health (NIH) stroke scale <3; major stroke, NIH stroke scale > or =3; transient ischemic attack (TIA), reversible focal neurologic impairment; technical, reversible neurologic compromise during EPD deployment, inability to cross lesion, ICA spasm requiring treatment, EPD-related factors that prolonged CAS. RESULTS: CAS (n = 141) was performed in 133 patients (82% men) with a mean age of 72 of years. Comorbidities included diabetes, 35%; coronary artery disease, 75%; hypertension, 82%; and renal insufficiency, 15%. Indication was previous cerebrovascular accident in 10%, TIA in 29%, and asymptomatic >80% stenosis in 61%. Primary lesions were treated in 83% vs restenosis in 17%. The 30-day event rate was 1.4% major stroke, 2.1% minor stoke, 1.4% myocardial infarction, and 0.7% death. The overall combined 30-day stroke, death, and myocardial infarction rate was 5.6%. The 30-day stroke and death rate was 4.0% in the balloon group (n = 99) and 4.6% in the filter group (n = 42, P = .51). EPD-related technical difficulties occurred in 15% of the balloon group and 31% of the filter group (P < .05). Technical difficulties included a 10% incidence of reversible neurologic compromise during balloon deployment compared with 0% in the filter group (P = .002) and 12% incidence of inability to cross the lesion before predilation in the filter group compared with 0% in the balloon group (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: During CAS, both balloon occlusion and filter devices provide acceptable results and appear complimentary. Filters can be used preferentially to avoid a 10% incidence of reversible neurologic compromise associated with balloon occlusion, except in critically narrowed or tortuous lesions when balloon occlusion may be preferred because of a 12% need for unprotected predilatation with filters.     

应用脑保护装置的颈动脉支架成形术治疗颈动脉狭窄

目的 总结应用脑保护装置的颈动脉支架成形术的体会,并探讨其围手术期处理要点.方法 2002年1月至2007年12月共收治122例(125侧)颈动脉狭窄性病变患者,成功完成颈动脉支架成形术123侧,均使用了脑保护装置,共置人支架124枚.结果 技术成功率为98.4%(123/125).围手术期发生一过I生脑缺血6例(4.9%),小卒中2例(1.6%),完伞性卒中1例(O.8%),严重脑缺血再灌注损伤2例(1.6%),其余113例次(91.9%)无神经系统并发症发生.无围手术期死亡.总卒中/死亡率为2.4%.86例患者术后获随访,平均随访时间为18.5(3～36)个月,超声检查提示50%～70%狭窄5例(5.8%),70%以上狭窄1例(1.2%),均无临床症状.非相关原因死亡2例.其余78例(90.7%)支架通畅,无神经系统并发症发生.结论 颈动脉支架成形术是治疗颈动脉狭窄性病变安全、有效的方法.不断提高围手术期处理水平是进一步提高疗效、降低并发症发生率的重要保证.     

Cerebral protection during carotid stenting using flow reversal

BACKGROUND: Carotid angioplasty and stenting can be used in stroke prevention in high-risk patients. As embolic complications can occur during carotid angioplasty and stenting, a device was developed to protect from cerebral embolization. METHODS: Between September 1999 and May 2002, carotid angioplasty and stenting was performed in 100 patients (84 men; mean age, 69.2 years) with symptomatic (26%) or asymptomatic (74%) severe carotid artery stenosis. Wallstents were used in all cases with selective pre-dilatation. Cerebral protection devices (Parodi Anti-Emboli System [PAES], ArteriA, San Francisco, Calif) were used in all patients. All patients were evaluated by a neurologist, both before and after the procedure. According to the criteria set forth by the large trials, the occurrence of minor, major or fatal stroke and myocardial infarction (end points) within 30 days and follow-up were determined as end points. Data were collected prospectively. RESULTS: The overall perioperative stroke and death rate was 3% (1 noncorresponding minor stroke, 1 hemorrhagic stroke, and 1 cardiac event). Four patients developed postoperative transient neurologic events (three related to hemodynamic instability and the fourth due to postoperative embolization). The overall technical success rate for carotid angioplasty (protection device placed in position percutaneously) was 99%. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of carotid angioplasty and stenting with PAES are confirmed. This innovative protection device may prevent the debris released by angioplasty from entering the cerebral circulation. Further investigation is warranted.     

Endovascular stenting of symptomatic innominate artery stenosis under distal balloon protection of the internal carotid and vertebral artery for cerebral protection: a technical case report

The use of cerebral protection devices in endovascular treatment for innominate artery (IA) stenosis is not well established. We describe a novel technique for cerebral protection during endovascular stenting of symptomatic IA stenosis. An 82-year-old man presented with acutely scattered brain infarction by artery-to-artery embolism due to IA stenosis. Endovascular treatment for symptomatic IA stenosis was planned to prevent recurrent attacks. Endovascular stenting for IA stenosis via the right femoral artery approach was performed under simultaneous distal balloon protection of the right internal carotid artery (ICA) and vertebral artery (VA) via the right brachial artery approach. Successful treatment of symptomatic IA stenosis was achieved with no complications. The technique with simultaneous distal balloon protection of the ICA and VA provided excellent cerebral protection in stenting of IA stenosis.     

近端血流阻塞式脑保护装置下颈动脉支架成形术的临床研究

目的 研究近端血流阻塞式脑保护装置MO.MA系统在颈动脉支架成形术中预防脑血管栓塞的疗效,并评价其安全性及可操作性.方法 2007年10月至2008年7月,23例符合外科治疗指征的颈动脉硬化狭窄患者入选本研究,其中19例(82.6%)患者有神经系统症状.全脑血管造影后在脑保护装置MO.MA系统下行颈动脉球囊扩张及支架成形术,计算术中脑缺血时间,观察术中及术后30 d神经系统事件的发生情况.结果 颈动脉造影示,6例(26.1%)颈动脉狭窄50%～70%,17例(73.9%)颈动脉狭窄>70%.所有病例在MO.MA系统保护下颈动脉球囊扩张及支架植入均顺利进行,颈动脉平均阻断时间(5.3±1.2)min.术中及围手术期无死亡及脑卒中发生;2例在颈总动脉球囊阻断时出现短暂意识丧失伴对侧肢体短暂抽搐;2例术后出现心动过缓和低血压,持续时间分别为6 h及1周.9例患者术中颈动脉抽血中可见细小斑块碎片.术后30 d随访有1例TIA发作,1例对侧新发脑卒中,术后30 d累积脑卒中发生率及病死率为4.3%.结论 应用近端血流阻断式脑保护装置MO.MA系统在颈动脉支架成形术中预防神经系统事件发生是安全有效的,尤其适合重度及不稳定性斑块的颈动脉硬化狭窄支架成形术治疗.     

An uncommon cause for carotid artery stenosis after carotid stenting

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has evolved as a minimally invasive alternative to carotid endarterectomy, particularly among patients with prior neck surgery or external beam radiation for malignancy. Restenosis after CAS remains low yet is typically due to neointimal hyperplasia and manifests within the first 2 years after stent placement. We present an unusual case of carotid artery stenosis 18 months after angioplasty and stenting as a result of recurrent malignancy, which was treated with repeat stent placement.     

Techniques for carotid artery stenting under cerebral protection

Carotid angioplasty and stenting is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. During the stenting process, however, distal embolization usually occurs, and the particles released may cause neurologic problems or death. Thus, the safety of carotid stenting depends partly on use of a cerebral protection device during the procedure. Three principal types of protection mechanisms have been developed: distal balloon occlusion, distal filtration, and proximal occlusion with or without reversal of flow. Products using these mechanisms have been manufactured by a variety of companies, and many are used routinely outside the United States (US). One distal filter, the RX Accunet, has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for clinical use. Large clinical trials of most of the newest carotid stents and cerebral protection devices are under way, and some initial results have been reported. Several clinical series in which cerebral protection was employed have also been described. Each type of protection device has advantages and disadvantages, which are discussed in this review.     

Bilateral carotid stenting for bilateral carotid artery stenosis improved vascular dementia

We report a case of bilateral internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis treated with stenting. A 78-year-old man suffered from vascular dementia and left hemiparesis, and, by magnetic resonance angiogram (MRA), was diagnosed as having bilateral ICA stenosis. Cerebral angiogram showed severe, bilateral ICA stenosis (right; 88%, left; 93%) and xenon single photon emission tomography (SPECT) showed severely decreased cerebral blood flow (CBF) and cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR). We performed bilateral carotid angioplasty with self-expanding stents. Both CBF and CVR were improved bilaterally after the operation. The patient was discharged without neurological deficits. Carotid stenting may be an alternative treatment for severe ischemia caused by severe, bilateral ICA stenosis.     

Acute carotid artery stenting in symptomatic high-grade cervical carotid artery stenosis

The safety and efficacy of emergency carotid artery stenting (CAS) for patients with acute ischemic stroke resulting from internal carotid artery stenosis are not established. In this retrospective study, we evaluated outcomes for CAS performed within 2 weeks of acute ischemic stroke for 16 patients treated between December 2009 and February 2014. Cases of internal carotid artery occlusion, internal carotid dissection, or intracranial major arterial trunk occlusion were excluded. Five patients were treated with CAS during the hyperacute phase (within 24 h of stroke onset), three in the advanced phase (within 24 h of stroke-in-evolution after admission), and eight in the acute phase (24 h to 2 weeks after onset). We evaluated modified Rankin scale (mRS) scores 90 days after CAS. For patients treated during the hyperacute phase without intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator (IV-tPA), two had mRS scores of 2 and one had a score of 3. Two patients treated in the hyperacute phase with IV-tPA had scores of 5: one with symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage and the other with acute brain swelling. For patients treated in the advanced phase, mRS scores were 1, 3, and 5; the patient with 5 had contralateral cerebral infarction. All patients treated in the acute phase had scores of 2 or lower. Patients treated with IV-tPA in advanced or acute phases had no severe post-CAS complications. CAS was effective and safe for treating ischemic stroke within 2 weeks of onset. However, IV-tPA treatment may be a risk factor for CAS treatment during the hyperacute phase.     

颈动脉支架植入术并发症分析

目的 总结颈动脉球囊扩张及支架植入术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)治疗颈动脉狭窄术后并发症及处理措施.方法 回顾性分析2006年7月至2012年1月因颈动脉狭窄而接受颈动脉球囊扩张及支架植入术(carotid artery stenting)72例患者的临床资料.CAS操作采取标准治疗方法,患者术前5d均口服阿司匹林100 mg与氯吡格雷75 mg,所有患者均先放置远端保护装置,90％以上狭窄患者进行前扩张,残留狭窄＞30％则进行后扩张.结果 72例患者成功地植入颈动脉自膨式支架80枚,全部使用远端脑保护装置,5例患者行同期手术,其中冠状动脉搭桥手术( off-pumpcoronary artery bypass grafting,OPCABG)2例,左锁骨下动脉支架植入2例,1例肾动脉支架植入.住院期间并发症的发生率为37.5％(27例),其中严重并发症(死亡/卒中/心肌梗死)发生率为1.39％(1例同侧小卒中);其他神经系统并发症包括2例同侧TIA(2.78％),1例高灌注综合征(1.39％),血液动力学不稳定并发症的发生率为29.2％(21例),其中1例高血压(1.39％),5例心动过缓(8.33％),15例术后低血压(20.8％),其他2例出现穿刺点血肿(2.78％).结论 血液动力学改变(低血压、心动过缓)是CAS围手术期主要并发症,神经系统并发症发生率较低,严重并发症少见.     

颈动脉狭窄的血管内支架治疗

目的 总结颈内动脉狭窄血管内支架治疗的经验与并发症。方法 颈内动脉狭窄患者417例，全部患者行全脑血管造影及颈部超声检查。134例患者使用脑保护装置；283患者未使用保护装置，对其中202例(71．38％)进行预扩张，66例(23．32％)采取后扩张，3例未扩张。结果 417例患者术中，心率下降者105例(25．18％)；术中微栓子脱落5例，其中2例治疗后好转，2例留有一侧肢体运动障碍，术后颅内出血死亡1例。322例随诊，占77．22％，其中再狭窄15例，再狭窄发生率为3．6％。325例有临床症状的患者中，256例症状消失或好转，占78．77％；结论 采用正确的围手术期治疗及手术方法，颈内动脉狭窄的血管内支架治疗是安全的，应对术后脑血管过度灌注导致脑出血给予重视。     

Retrograde carotid stenting for isolated stenosis of the proximal common carotid artery--case report

A 49-year-old female with a history of systemic hypertension and diabetes mellitus suffered transient right hemiparesis. Carotid angiography with arch-aortography detected severe stenosis of the proximal portion of the left common carotid artery. The left carotid bifurcation was surgically exposed and retrograde catheterization was performed to approach the proximal common carotid artery stenosis. The lesion was dilated with a balloon catheter and successfully stented without complications. The left internal carotid artery was clamped during the procedure to avoid embolism. Retrograde carotid stenting for stenosis of the proximal common carotid artery is a safe and effective alternative to conventional surgery in selected patients.     

Economic evaluation of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis

BACKGROUND: The clinical effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is well established. But the economic impact of CEA and carotid artery stenting (CAS) is still uncertain. The objective of this study was to compare hospital costs and reimbursement for CAS and CEA. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective database analysis on pair-matched patients who underwent CEA (n = 31) and CAS (n = 31) at the Richard M Ross Heart Hospital in Columbus, OH. The hospital's clinical and financial databases were used to obtain patient-specific information and procedural charges. Cost data were generated by applying the hospital's ratio of cost to charges for all DRG charges. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to examine the differences between costs of these procedures. RESULTS: Data are reported as mean +/- SD. The mean age of patients in CAS group was 70.14 years (+/- 1.60 years) versus 68.64 years (+/- 1.75 years) for CEA patients (p < 0.05). The total direct cost associated with CEA ($3,765.12+/-$2,170.82) was significantly lower than the CAS cost ($8,219.71+/-$2,958.55, p < 0.001). The mean procedural cost for CAS ($7,543.61+/-$2,886.54) was significantly higher than that for CEA ($2,720.00+/-$926.38, p < 0.001). The hospital experienced cost savings of $9,690.87 for CEA versus $4,804.79 for CAS from private insurance. Similarly, savings obtained by Medicare-enrolled CEA patients were higher than those for CAS patients ($1,497.79). CONCLUSIONS: CAS is significantly more expensive than CEA, with a major portion of cost attributed to the total procedural cost. The hospital experienced significant savings from CEA procedures compared with CAS under all DRG classifications and insurers. Hospitals must develop new financial strategies and improve the efficiency of infrastructure to make CAS financially viable.