Comparison of dual protection and distal filter protection as a distal embolic protection method during carotid artery stenting: a single-center carotid artery stenting experience

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.

Proximal versus distal protection: dissecting clinical trials

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a valid alternative to conventional carotid endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis. Distal embolization of atherosclerotic debris causing cerebrovascular accidents during CAS has been the most significant concern limiting widespread application of CAS technology. A variety of embolic protection devices (EPDs) with different mechanism of action, have been designed to minimize the risk of major embolization causing stroke and their use is recommended by current guidelines. Two general types of EPDs are available: proximal protection devices (PPDs) and distal protection devices (DPDs). However, there is no convincing clinical evidence of the clinical superiority of one device over another. This review will examine the different types of available devices and also innovative devices and techniques, including strengths and weaknesses of each, and present the available evidence and rationale for their routine use during CAS.

Strategy of carotid artery stenting as first-line treatment and carotid endarterectomy for carotid artery stenosis: A single-center experience

Background:

The main surgical options for stenosis of the carotid artery are carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). The number of CAS procedures performed in Japan greatly exceeds that of CEA procedures. In this study, we used data from a single center to examine CAS and CEA for carotid artery stenosis.

Methods:

The subjects were patients with carotid artery stenosis who underwent CAS or CEA between January 2012 and May 2020. CAS was the first-choice treatment. CEA was used in cases with vulnerable plaques, a relatively low risk of general anesthesia, and no anatomical features disadvantageous for endarterectomy.

Results:

A total of 140 cases (102 CAS and 38 CEA) were examined. There were more elderly patients in the CAS group. The CEA group had a higher rate of vulnerable plaques and only one case with an unfavorable anatomy for CEA. Major adverse events (stroke) occurred in two CAS cases. In multivariate logistic analysis, postoperative ischemic lesions were independently associated with age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01–1.26, P = 0.026) and vulnerable plaque (OR = 5.54, 95% CI: 1.48–20.70, P = 0.011) in the CAS group, but not in the CEA group.

Conclusion:

The results reflect the treatment algorithm at our hospital, indicating that triage is accurate. Thus, it is beneficial to assign cases based primarily on plaque vulnerability and anatomical risk for CEA, and to not hesitate to perform CEA simply because of old age. CAS as first-line treatment and CEA are effective and safe, which reflect the treatment situation in Japan.

Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients With Contralateral Carotid Occlusion Using a Combined Protection Method

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Carotid artery stenting has become widespread as a revascularization method and has increasingly replaced carotid endarterectomy for treating internal carotid artery stenosis with contralateral carotid occlusion. Hence, this study aimed to establish the clinical characteristics and perioperative outcomes of carotid artery stenting for internal carotid artery stenosis in patients with contralateral carotid occlusion using a combined protection method.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center study assessed 218 patients with internal carotid artery stenosis who underwent carotid artery stenting using the dual protection (simultaneous flow reversal and distal filter) and blood aspiration method. We distinguished 2 patient groups: contralateral carotid occlusion (n = 11) and no contralateral carotid occlusion (n = 207). We evaluated the patients' characteristics, intraoperative transient neurological symptoms, hypotension, bradycardia, major adverse events (major stroke, myocardial infarction, and death within 90 days), minor stroke, hyperintensities on diffusion-weighted images after carotid artery stenting, captured visible debris, and restenosis.

RESULTS

In this cohort, 5% of patients with internal carotid artery stenosis had contralateral carotid occlusion. No statistically significant differences in patient characteristics existed between the groups. The success rate of carotid artery stenting was 100%. There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative complications, postoperative major adverse events, or other outcomes between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort, carotid artery stenting using dual protection combined with blood aspiration was safe and effective in preventing distal embolism in patients with internal carotid artery stenosis and contralateral carotid occlusion.

Mid-term and late results of endovascular treatment for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis under proximal protection

Introduction

Although filters are still preferred during carotid stenting, proximal protection systems (PPS) are increasingly used during these procedures. PPS seem to be safer than distal systems, especially in symptomatic patients, but evidence supporting their use is limited.

Aim

This was a post hoc survey with 30-day mid-term and long-term follow up, which was aimed at assessment of the safety and efficacy of stenting of the internal carotid artery under PPS in symptomatic patients.

Material and methods

We analysed the results of stenting in 120 symptomatic patients presenting with at least 60% stenosis. Patients were aged 67.9 ±9.8 years, and 12 patients were older than 80 years. An occlusion of contralateral artery was found in 5 patients and bilateral stenosis in 26 patients. The primary endpoint of this study was the proportion of patients who had new neurological events, including transient ischemic attack and minor or major stroke in 30-day follow-up. The secondary endpoint was a composite of technical and clinical success. During long-term follow-up we assessed new neurological events and stenoses of implanted stents.

Results

The incidence of new neurological events during 30-day follow-up was 0.8%. The rate of technical success defined by secondary endpoint was 100%. Mean internal carotid artery stenosis before and after stent implantation was 93.8 ±9% and 8.4 ±6.3%, respectively (p < 0.001). Procedural success was achieved in all cases. During long-term follow-up there were two (1.7%) asymptomatic in-stent stenoses and no (0%) new neurological events.

Conclusions

Endovascular management of symptomatic carotid stenosis under PPS is safe, feasible, and appears to be a good alternative to surgical endarterectomy.

Safety of carotid artery stenting for elderly patients with cervical carotid artery stenosis

BACKGROUND

Several recent randomized controlled trials have reported that perioperative complications of carotid artery stenting increase with age, and Japan has the highest proportion of elderly in the world. We retrospectively compared clinical factors, treatment outcomes, and adverse events between younger and elderly carotid artery stenting patients at a single institution in Japan to assess carotid artery stenting safety for the aged population.

METHODS

A total of 150 consecutive patients treated with carotid artery stenting using the dual protection (simultaneous flow reversal and distal filter) and blood aspiration method were enrolled. Patients were classified into an elderly (O) group ≥75 years (54/150, 36.0%) and a younger (Y) group <75 years (96/150, 64%) for comparison of demographics, clinical background, incidence of captured debris during the procedure, outcome, minor stroke, major adverse events (major stroke, myocardial infarction, or death) within 30 days, hyperintense spots on diffusion-weighted images after carotid artery stenting, and postoperative hospitalization days.

RESULTS

The carotid artery stenting procedure was successful in all cases. No major adverse events occurred within 30 days in the Y group, and only one occurred in the O group (P = 0.348). Visible debris was captured in a significantly greater proportion of O group patients than in Y group patients (33/54 (63.5%) vs. 40/96 (42.1%), P = 0.016), but there was no significant difference in the frequency of hyperintense spots on diffusion-weighted images between Y and O groups (23/96 (24.0%) vs. 16/52 (30.8%), P = 0.435).

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid artery stenting using dual protection and blood aspiration is equally safe for younger and elderly patients.

Carotid artery stenting: Current state of evidence and future directions

Both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are common treatments for carotid artery stenosis. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared CEA to CAS in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. These studies have suggested that CAS is more strongly associated with periprocedural stroke; however, CEA is more strongly associated with myocardial infarction. Published long-term outcomes report that CAS and CEA are similar. A reduction in complications associated with CAS has also been demonstrated over time. The symptomatic status of the patient and history of previous CEA or cervical radiotherapy are significant factors when deciding between CEA or CAS. Numerous carotid artery stents are available, varying in material, shape and design but with minimal evidence comparing stent types. The role of cerebral protection devices is unclear. Dual antiplatelet therapy is typically prescribed to prevent in-stent thrombosis, and however, evidence comparing periprocedural and postprocedural antiplatelet therapy is scarce, resulting in inconsistent guidelines. Several RCTs are underway that will aim to clarify some of these uncertainties. In this review, we summarize the development of varying techniques of CAS and studies comparing CAS to CEA as treatment options for carotid artery stenosis.

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

OBJECTIVE

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.

MATERIALS & METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Early results of endovascular treatment of patients with bilateral stenoses of the internal carotid arteries using proximal protection systems at 30-day follow-up

BACKGROUND

Although surgical endarterectomy remains the treatment of choice for carotid artery stenosis, carotid artery stenting (CAS) with use of proximal protection systems (PPS) plays an very important role as alternative treatment modality, especially in patients with critical, symptomatic lesions. This study was single-centre study to evaluate the technical and clinical success of proximal protection devices as the first choice for embolic protection in symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis in patients with bilateral, advanced lesions of carotid arteries (bilateral stenoses or stenosis and occlusion).

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis, with 30-day follow up. We analyzed results of treatment of 38 patients who underwent 38 CAS with PPS, 17 such procedures in asymptomatic (group A), and 21 in symptomatic individuals (group B). The GORE^® Flow Reversal System (W.L. Gore, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) was used in 2 patients, and the Mo.Ma Ultra device (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) in 36 patients. Mean age was 68±7 years, 65% percent of patient were male.

RESULTS

There were no procedural and during 30-day follow-up neurologic events. Intolerance of occlusion system occurred in 4 patients (11%) in both groups with any later symptoms. Risk factors of this adverse event comprised: lesions of the left internal carotid lesion and coexisiting diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSIONS

CAS in high risk patients with bilateral lesions of carotid arteries with the use of PPS seems to be a relatively very safe procedure.

The Role of Embolic Protection in Carotid Stenting Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases (PCVD)

Embolic protection device (EPD) use has become ubiquitous and is currently mandated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) for reimbursement in conjunction with carotid artery stenting (CAS). There are two classes of EPD devices: distal filter EPD (f-EPD) and proximal EPD (p-EPD). Measuring the incremental benefit of one strategy over the other remains problematic for several reasons. The first lies in the difficulty of defining an embolic event as transcranial Doppler and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities may not correlate with clinical events. Next, f-EPD is used more frequently than p-EPD making direct comparisons challenging, as analyses to this point have been underpowered. However, there are several promising emerging techniques and technologies that warrant further investigation.

Patient- and lesion-tailored algorithm of endovascular treatment for arterial occlusive disease of extracranial arteries supplying the brain: safety of the treatment at 30-day follow-up

Introduction

Although surgical endarterectomy remains the treatment of choice for carotid artery stenosis, stenting plays an important role as an alternative treatment modality, especially in high-risk patients. The actual safety profile associated with stenting procedures is probably better than that reported by randomized controlled trials.

Aim

To assess the safety of stent implantations in extracranial arteries supplying the brain, and also to identify risk factors associated with this procedure.

Material and methods

This was a post hoc analysis, with 30-day follow-up. We analyzed the results of treatment of 372 patients who underwent 408 procedures, 197 such procedures in asymptomatic, and 211 in symptomatic individuals. Stenting procedures were performed using a technique and armamentarium which were tailored to the type and anatomy of lesions.

Results

There were 6 (1.5%) strokes, including 2 (0.5%) major strokes, 1 ipsi- and 1 contralateral, and 4 (1.0%) minor strokes. In asymptomatic patients there was 1 (0.3%) minor stroke. Transient ischemic attacks occurred in 5 (1.2%) patients. There were 2 (0.5%) non-STEMI myocardial infarctions and 2 (0.5%) non-stroke related fatalities. Risk factors of these adverse events were diabetes mellitus, lesions localized in a tortuous segment of the artery, embolic material in the filter and bilateral stenoses of carotid arteries. Additional risk factors in asymptomatic patients were renal impairment and advanced coronary artery disease; and in symptomatic patients, grade 3 arterial hypertension, dislipidemia, cigarette smoking and lesions requiring predilatation.

Conclusions

Stenting procedures of extracranial arteries supplying the brain, which are tailored to the type and anatomy of lesions, seem to be relatively safe.

Carotid artery stenting for vulnerable plaques on MR angiography and ultrasonography: utility of dual protection and blood aspiration method

Background

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) for internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis with vulnerable plaques is controversial. We analyzed the effect of a dual protection and blood aspiration method during CAS in patients with vulnerable plaques.

Methods

A total of 111 patients with ICA stenosis underwent CAS using the dual protection (simultaneous flow reversal and distal filter) and blood aspiration method. In 103 of 111 patients, preoperative carotid plaque was estimated by both 3 T MRI and ultrasonography (US). ICA plaques with a high intensity signal on time-of-flight-MR angiography (TOF-MRA) and/or mobile component on US were defined as vulnerable plaques. We assessed major adverse events (MAE) (ie, major stroke, myocardial infarction, and death) and hyperintense spots on diffusion-weighted images (DWI) after CAS. We then evaluated the visible debris captured by dual protection and blood aspiration during CAS.

Results

The preoperative ICA plaque on TOF-MRA and US was judged to be vulnerable in 48.5% (50/103 patients). The success rate of the CAS procedure was 100% with no MAE within 30 days. DWI showed small hyperintense spots in 18% (9/50 patients) and 18.9% (10/53 patients) in the vulnerable and non-vulnerable plaque groups, respectively. Visible debris was captured in 68% (34/50 patients) and 45.3% (24/53 patients) in the vulnerable and non-vulnerable plaque groups, respectively (p=0.0286).

Conclusions

The combination of dual protection and blood aspiration could provide effective distal embolic protection although vulnerable plaques on TOF-MRA and US had a high incidence of debris during CAS. Thus, CAS using dual protection and blood aspiration is safe in patients with vulnerable plaques.