Distal protection filter device efficacy with carotid artery stenting: comparison between a distal protection filter and a distal protection balloon

Safety and Risk Factors of Carotid Artery Stenting with Simple Distal Filter Protection: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Objective

Carotid artery stenting embolic protection devices offer various options, among which distal filter protection is the simplest and easiest to handle. However, compared to balloon protection systems, distal filter protection has more embolic complications. Therefore, we explored the risk factors of distal filter protection, intending to achieve a safer carotid artery stenting. This retrospective study was conducted to identify prognostic factors following carotid artery stenting with only distal filter protection from July 2010 to June 2021.

Methods

Information on patient background, procedures and devices, and complications was collected using medical records. The data pertaining to 187 patients were analyzed after excluding the data of patients in whom other protection devices (8 cases) were used. We used FilterWire EZ as the first choice for embolic protection device and SpiderFX when the patients had difficult-to-cross lesions.

Results

The patients' mean age was 71.9 ± 6.9 years, and 72 (38.5%) were symptomatic. Symptomatic (odds ratio: 2.02, p = 0.035) and difficult-to-cross lesions (odds ratio: 3.63, p = 0.0013) were factors independently associated with symptomatic complications.

Conclusion

This retrospective single-center study established independent prognostic factors for carotid artery stenting with distal filter protection. For patients with symptomatic lesions and severe stenosis or bends that are difficult to pass through, it is necessary to be careful when performing carotid artery stenting with distal filter protection.

Clinical trial of carotid artery stenting using dual-layer CASPER stent for carotid endarterectomy in patients at high and normal risk in the Japanese population

BACKGROUND

The dual-layer nitinol CASPER stent was designed to prevent plaque prolapse into its strut and periprocedural stroke.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a clinical trial for government approval of the device in patients at either high or normal risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

METHODS

Eligible patients had ≥50% symptomatic stenosis or ≥80% asymptomatic stenosis according to the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial methods (peak systolic velocity 130 and 230 cm/s on ultrasonography, respectively). The primary endpoint was the lack of major adverse events (MAEs), defined as death, stroke, and myocardial infarction within 30 days, and ipsilateral stroke within 1 year. The performance goal was set at 90.5%. MAE rates were also compared between the CEA high- and normal-risk groups.

RESULTS

140 carotid artery stenting procedures, including 40% of patients at high risk and 60% at normal risk for CEA, were performed in 13 institutes. MAEs occurred in two cases (one intraprocedural and one postprocedural stroke), and the MAE rate was 1.4%. The non-MAE rate was 98.6% according to Kaplan-Meier analysis, which was superior to the previously set performance goal. The deployment success, target lesion revascularization (TLR), in-stent restenosis, and cerebrovascular event rates were 99.3%, 2.4%, 8.5%, and 7.2%, respectively. The MAE rate in patients with normal CEA risk was 1.2%, which was similar to the high-risk CEA group, with no significant difference due to the small number of MAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The MAE rate following use of the CASPER stent was low (1.4%). The MAE, deployment success, TLR, in-stenosis, and cerebrovascular event rates were similar to those of previous reports.

Combined Angioplasty Technique of the Carotid Territory and Supra-Aortic Trunk by Double Access (Cervical and Limbs) for Tandem Lesions

BACKGROUND

The carotid stent angioplasty (CAS) has been the main option for patients with high cardiovascular risk and carotid stenosis. The common femoral artery is still the most used access site; however, the aortic arch manipulation is a critical moment for cerebral embolization. Carotid transcervical access should be considered as a good alternative access route for CAS. Tandem lesions combining supra-aortic trunks and ipsilateral carotid bulb critical stenosis pose a great challenge for the vascular surgeon.

METHODS

This is a retrospective descriptive study based on medical records of our institution. We report 2 cases of complex cerebral vascular insufficiency and discuss therapeutic options and strategies to protect the cerebrovascular territory avoiding microembolization, as well as demonstrate an alternative and safe total endovascular approach for those cases.

RESULTS

We describe the approach of 2 complex cerebral vascular insufficiency cases: case 1, a 63-year-old male with previous ischemic stroke, right internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion, left ICA stenosis >70%, and critical stenosis of the origin of common carotid artery (CCA); case 2, a 68-year-old female with previous ischemic stroke, left ICA occlusion, brachiocephalic trunk critical stenosis, hypoplastic right vertebral artery, and aortobi-iliac chronic occlusion. In both cases reported here a challenging solution was chosen, little described in the literature, with cerebral filter protection as the first step. In addition, a literature review was performed to discuss the different approach options for tandem injuries of the supra-aortic trunk and carotid bulb.

CONCLUSIONS

Our initial experience with total endovascular treatment of complex tandem lesions of the carotid territory and supra-aortic trunks show that transcervical access, coupled with distal protection filter device on the first step, is a safe and effective technique for preventing neurological events.

Transcervical access, reversal of flow and mesh-covered stents: New options in the armamentarium of carotid artery stenting

In the last 25 years, the very existence of carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been threatened on a number of occasions. The initial disappointing results that even lead to the discontinuation of an early randomized controlled trial have improved considerably with time. Novel devices, advanced stent and equipment technology, alternative types of access and several types of filters/emboli protecting devices have been reported to reduce stroke/death rates during/after CAS and improve CAS outcomes. The present review will provide a description of the various technology advances in the field that aim to reduce stroke and death rates associated with CAS. Transcervical access, reversal of flow and mesh-covered stents are currently the most promising tools in the armamentarium of CAS.

Perioperative and follow-up results in carotid artery stenting with contralateral carotid occlusion

PURPOSE

Contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) increases the risk of carotid endarterectomy (CEA). We determined the outcome of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), an alternative to CEA, in the setting of CCO through an independent analysis of imaging and clinical outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medical records of 26 consecutive patients with CCO who underwent CAS by a single operator using the same procedural protocol (with distal protection and closed-cell stents) were retrospectively evaluated. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores before and after CAS, periprocedural complications, and the restenosis rate were analyzed by independent stroke neurologists who were not involved in the care of the patients.

RESULTS

The median mRS score for the 26 patients was 1 (range 0-5) before and after CAS. All of the patients underwent clinical and imaging follow-up (mean 19.5 ± 14.3 and 11.6 ± 11.2 months, respectively). Thirty-day mortality/permanent morbidity rates were 0 %. One patient had hyperperfusion syndrome and was managed medically without sequelae; however, he had stent occlusion after 30 days, resulting in a decline in his mRS from 4 (preprocedure) to 5. Otherwise, there was no decline in mRS during the post-discharge follow-up.

CONCLUSION

According to an independent analysis of this single-operator series, CAS is safe and effective for the treatment of patients with CCO.

A New Concept for Carotid Artery Stenting: Coating the Atherosclerotic Plaque by Covered Stent before Bare Stent Implantation

In carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedures, distal embolism, periprocedural stent thrombosis, and 30-day stroke due to the plaque fragmentation and protrusion caused by stent implantation and balloon dilation are frequent complications. In this technical case report, a case is presented of extracranial carotid artery stenosis treated with a covered stent and subsequent implantation of a bare stent. In addition, the possibility is discussed that this new technique prevents the distal microembolic complications, periprocedural stent thrombosis, and 30-day stroke of extracranial CAS.

Clinical Analysis Comparing Efficacy between a Distal Filter Protection Device and Proximal Balloon Occlusion Device during Carotid Artery Stenting

OBJECTIVE

The main concern during transfemoral carotid artery stenting (CAS) is preventing cerebral embolus dislodgement. We compared clinical outcomes and intraprocedural embolization rates of CAS using a distal filter protection device or proximal balloon occlusion device.

METHODS

From January 2011 to March 2015, a series of 58 patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis ≥70% were treated with CAS with embolic protection device in single center. All patients underwent post-CAS diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) to detect new ischemic lesions. We compared clinical outcomes and postprocedural embolization rates.

RESULTS

CAS was performed in all 61 patients. Distal filter protection success rate was 96.6% (28/29), whose mean age was 70.9 years, and mean stenosis was 81%. Their preprocedural infarction rate was 39% (11/28). Subsequent DW-MRI revealed 96 new ischemic lesions in 71% (20/28) patients. In contrast, the proximal balloon occlusion device success rate was 93.8% (30/32), whose mean age was 68.8 years and mean stenosis was 86%. Preprocedure infarction rate was 47% (14/30). DW-MRI revealed 45 new ischemic lesions in 57% (17/30) patients. Compared with distal filter protection device, proximal balloon occlusion device resulted in fewer ischemic lesions per patient (p=0.028). In each group, type of stent during CAS had no significant effect on number of periprocedural embolisms. Only 2 neurologic events occurred in the successfully treated patients (one from each group).

CONCLUSION

Transfemoral CAS with proximal balloon occlusion device achieves good results. Compared with distal filter protection, proximal balloon occlusion might be more effective in reducing cerebral embolism during CAS.

Treatment outcomes of carotid artery stenting with two types of distal protection filter device

PURPOSE

Preventing cerebral embolism from debris produced during carotid artery stenting (CAS) is important. This study compared the treatment outcomes of CAS using two types of filter-based embolic protection devices currently in use in Japan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We assessed 121 consecutive cases of CAS performed with FilterWire EZ™ between July 2010 and November 2012 and 37 consecutive cases of CAS performed with the Spider FX™ between November 2012 and June 2013. A Carotid Wallstent™ was used in all cases. The incidence of positive lesions on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) and stroke were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Postoperative DWI-positive lesions were observed in 38 (31.4%) and 14 (37.8%) patients in the FilterWire and Spider groups, respectively. In the FilterWire group, complications were transient ischemic attacks in 3 (2.5%) patients, cerebral infarction in 2 (1.7%) patients (1 patient each with minor and major stroke), and cerebral hemorrhage due to hyperperfusion syndrome in 1 (0.8%) patient. In the Spider group, except for cerebral infarction (minor stroke) in 1 (2.7%) patient, no complications were observed. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of complications between the groups.

CONCLUSION

FilterWire EZ and Spider FX are comparable in terms of treatment outcome.

Flow reversal versus filter protection: a pilot carotid artery stenting randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has become an alternative treatment for patients presenting symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. The improvement in clinical outcomes with CAS has been associated with the development of embolic protection devices. The trial aim is to compare flow reversal versus filter protection during CAS through femoral access.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients were randomly enrolled in CAS using flow reversal or filter protection. The primary end points were the incidence, number, and size of new ischemic brain lesions after CAS. The secondary end points included major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, transient ischemic attack, and definitive ischemic brain lesions on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery magnetic resonance image at a 3-month follow-up. Ischemic brain lesions were assessed by a 3T magnetic resonance image. Neurological outcomes were evaluated by means of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Forty consecutive patients were randomly assigned. Compared with flow reversal (n=21), filter protection (n=19) resulted in a significant reduction in the incidence (15.8% versus 47.6%, P=0.03), number (0.73 versus 2.6, P=0.05), and size (0.81 versus 2.23 mm, P=0.05) of new ischemic brain lesions. Two patients, 1 from each group, presented transient ischemic attack at 3-month follow-up. There were no major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in the hospital or at 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small sample size trial, filter protection was more effective than flow reversal in reducing ischemic brain lesions during CAS through femoral approach.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL

http://portal2.saude.gov.br/sisnep/. Unique identifier: 0538.0.004.000-10.