Radial and ulnar approach for carotid artery stenting with Roadsaver™ double layer micromesh stent: Early and long-term follow-up

[Stenting of the extracranial internal carotid artery]

The treatment of patients with stenosis of the internal carotid artery (ICA) is based on established guidelines, which includes both surgical and endovascular treatment options; however, the most recent advances, including the emergence of new endovascular treatment methods and techniques, combined with more recent clinical results, throw a new light on the optimal selection and treatment of patients in the current practice. This article deals with the most recent advances in the field of stenting of the extracranial internal carotid artery.

Forearm access for carotid artery stenting using the dual protection of flow reversal and distal filter: Trans-forearm dual protection technique

BACKGROUND

Although transfemoral carotid artery stenting (CAS) is widely performed for carotid stenosis, serious or even fatal complications such as embolic and access site complications can still occur. We devised a novel dual protection system with continuous flow reversal to the cephalic vein of the forearm in transradial CAS, referred to as the "trans-forearm dual protection" technique.

METHODS

A 75-year-old man with a diagnosis of symptomatic left cervical internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis underwent CAS using the trans-forearm dual protection technique.

RESULTS

A 4F sheath was introduced into the cephalic vein of the right forearm. After an 8F balloon-guiding catheter was navigated into the left common carotid artery (CCA) via right sheathless radial access, a distal filter protection device was advanced into the high cervical ICA. The 8F balloon-guiding catheter was inflated and connected to the 4F sheath with a blood filter interposed. Under the dual protection of flow reversal and distal filter, the CAS procedure was performed. The postprocedural course was uneventful. Diffusion-weighted imaging 2 days after the procedure showed no evidence of ischemic stroke. The patient was discharged home without any complications 1 week after the procedure. Carotid duplex ultrasound performed 9 months after the procedure showed no signs of restenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This method allows for CAS under the dual protection of flow reversal and filter device protection via the trans-forearm access, reducing the risk of embolism and access site complications. Therefore, the trans-forearm dual protection technique can be a useful option for CAS.

Navigating complexity with low-crossing profile dual-layer micromesh carotid stent: implications for contemporary carotid artery stenting outcomes (ROADSAVER study insights)

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of carotid artery stenting (CAS) can be affected by certain technical and anatomical factors. However, it is not known whether the use of a dual-layer micromesh stent (DLMS) with a low-crossing profile could reduce the risks associated with complex vascular anatomies during CAS.

METHODS

This study involved 1965 asymptomatic or symptomatic carotid artery stenosis patients who received the Roadsaver DLMS during CAS, as part of a prospective, multicenter observational ROADSAVER study, conducted from January 2018 to February 2021. The primary outcome was the 30-day rate of major adverse events (MAE; i.e. any death or stroke) after CAS. Procedural details and outcomes were compared between patients with complex anatomical features and those without.

RESULTS

One or more complex anatomical characteristics were identified in 1639 (83.4%) patents. Patients with complex anatomies were older and had a higher prevalence of arterial hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and prior stroke. Between patients with or without complex anatomical features, no significant differences were found either in procedural techniques, or in 30-day MAE (age-adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) for complexities vs. no complexities: 0.76 (0.35, 1.66); p=0.4905) and any stroke (age-adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) for complexities vs. no complexities: 0.89 (0.37, 2.17); p=0.8032) incidence. Furthermore, neither the presence of specific types of anatomic complexity nor their number (per patient) markedly influenced the 30-day MAE and any stroke incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world cohort of patients undergoing CAS with the Roadsaver DLMS, no significant difference in the occurrence of 30-day MAE and any stroke was observed between patients with or without high-risk anatomical features.

Comparative analysis of carotid artery stenting practice and outcomes across operator specialties: insights from a prespecified subanalysis of a large real-world patient cohort (ROADSAVER Study)

BACKGROUND

In contemporary clinical practice, carotid artery stenting (CAS) is increasingly becoming a multispecialty field, joining operators of various training backgrounds, which bring forth their unique expertise, patient management philosophies, and procedural preferences. The best practices and approaches, however, are still debated. Therefore, real-world insights on different operator preferences and related outcomes are of utmost value, yet still rather scarce in the available literature.

METHODS

Using the data collected in the ROADSAVER observational, European multicenter CAS study, a prespecified comparative analysis evaluating the impact of the operator's specialization was performed. We used major adverse event (MAE) rate at 30-day follow-up, defined as the cumulative incidence of any death or stroke, and its components as outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 1965 procedures were analyzed; almost half 878 (44.7%) were performed by radiologists (interventional/neuro), 717 (36.5%) by cardiologists or angiologists, and 370 (18.8%) by surgeons (vascular/neuro). Patients treated by surgeons were the oldest (72.9±8.5), while radiologists treated most symptomatic patients (58.1%) and more often used radial access (37.2%). The 30-day MAE incidence achieved by cardiologists/angiologists was 2.0%, radiologists 2.5%, and surgeons 1.9%; the observed differences in rates were statistically not-significant (P=0.7027), even when adjusted for baseline patient/lesion and procedural disparities across groups. The corresponding incidence rates for death from any cause were 1.0%, 0.8%, and 0.3%, P=0.4880, and for any stroke: 1.4%, 2.3%, and 1.9%, P=0.4477, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the disparities in patient selection and procedural preferences, the outcomes achieved by different specialties in real-world, contemporary CAS practice remain similar when using modern devices and techniques.

Transradial carotid artery stenting using double layer micromesh stent and novel post-dilation balloon with integrated embolic protection

OBJECTIVES

The highest rate of embolization during carotid artery stenting occurs during post-dilation. We evaluated the ability of the Paladin system (Contego Medical, Raleigh, NC), a novel PTA balloon with an integrated 40-ɥm pore filter, to collect microemboli that may pass into the cerebral circulation when used during post-dilation.

METHODS

25 symptomatic patients underwent transradial CAS using the Paladin system in conjunction with the Roadsaver (Terumo Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) micromesh stent. No additional embolic protection was used. The Paladin filters were collected following the procedure and preserved in formalin for histological analysis. The contents were evaluated for particle count and size. Subjects were followed for 30 days and evaluated for major cardiac adverse events (death, stroke and MI). Secondary endpoints included procedure success, device success, access site complications according to EASY score classification, major vascular or ischemic complications at follow up and in-stent restenosis rate evaluated with duplex ultrasound.

RESULTS

Mean age of patients was 68,5 years. Type 2 aortic arch was present in 77 % of patients and type 1 and type 3 in 12 % and 11 % of patients respectively. Procedural and device success was obtained in all cases without complications. The 30-day MAE rate was 0 %. Twenty-three filters underwent histological analysis. Microscopic debris was present in 100 % of filters, and 75 % of particles were less than 100ɥm in size. The mean number of particles per filter was 3352 ± 1567 (IQR 4300-2343), and the mean number of particles between 40-100ɥm per filter was 2499 ± 1240 (IQR 3227-1575).

CONCLUSION

CAS through radial approach can be safely and effectively performed using the IEP technology Paladin device and double-layer micromesh Roadsaver stent. This strategy can simplify the procedure and decrease peri-procedural complications and procedural time.

Carotid artery interventions - endarterectomy versus stenting

Current management of patients with carotid artery stenosis is based on well-established guidelines, including surgical procedures - carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and endovascular carotid artery stenting (CAS) - and optimal medical treatment alone. Outcomes in the postprocedural period after CAS and CEA are similar, suggesting strong clinical durability for both treatments. Recent advances, which include the emergence of novel endovascular treatment tools and techniques, combined with more recent randomised trial data shed new light on optimal patient selection and treatment in contemporary practice. Improved, modern technologies including enhanced embolic protection devices and dual-layered micromesh stents yield better outcomes and should result in further improvements in CAS. In centres of excellence, nowadays, the majority of patients with severe carotid artery stenosis can be successfully treated with either CEA or CAS.

Procedural embolic protection strategies for carotid artery stenting: current status and future prospects

INTRODUCTION

Carotid artery angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is an established procedure to treat carotid artery stenosis for either primary or secondary prevention of stroke. Randomized clinical trials have shown an increased risk of periprocedural cerebrovascular events with CAS compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Several strategies have been proposed to mitigate this risk, including alternative vascular access site, proximal/distal embolic protection devices, and dual-layer stents, among others.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides a general overview of current embolic protection strategies for CAS. The phases of the procedure which can affect the early risk of stroke and how to reduce it with novel techniques and devices have been discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Innovations in device technologies have dramatically improved the safety and efficacy of CAS. To minimize the gap with surgery, a thorough, patient-oriented approach should be pursued. Endovascular technologies and techniques should be selected on an individual basis to address unique lesion characteristics and vascular anatomies. Meticulous pre-procedural planning, both clinical and anatomical, is needed to assess the embolic risk of each procedure. Only by having an in-depth understanding of the wide range of available endovascular devices and techniques, the operator will choose the most appropriate strategy to optimize CAS results.