Cervical Access for Filter-protected Carotid Artery Stenting: A Useful Tool to Reduce Cerebral Embolisation

Transcervical approach for carotid artery stenting without flow reversal: A case report

Current treatment options for high-risk patients with severe carotid artery stenosis include transcarotid artery revascularization, transfemoral carotid artery stenting, and carotid endarterectomy. Transfemoral carotid artery stenting is associated with high perioperative stroke risk, and recent studies and trials have identified transcarotid artery revascularization as a new technique able to minimize the stroke risk associated with high-risk procedures. Moreover, the transcervical approach allows easy access to the carotid artery in cases with an anatomically tortuous aortic arch. Therefore, determining the optimal approach to achieve arterial access during carotid stenting is important for successful procedures and positive outcomes. We report a clinical case of ischemic stroke due to severe stenosis of the left internal carotid artery indicated for stent deployment. After transfemoral carotid artery stenting failure, the patient's symptoms progressed from minor stroke to hemiplegia and Broca's aphasia. The transcervical approach was used to perform transcarotid artery revascularization after several days. The procedure was both safe and prevented recurrent stroke occurrence. Although transfemoral access is the classic approach used for carotid stenting, the transcervical approach can be used as an alternative and safe choice in cases with complex vascular anatomy, such as the one described here.

Transcervical Versus Transfemoral Approach in Carotid Stenting Real World Experience in a Community Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Peri-procedural embolic events are the Achilles' heel of carotid stenting. To overcome this complication, transcervical access to the carotid artery was introduced. In this study we describe our "our life" experience with the transcervical approach in a community hospital.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All carotid stent procedures between January 2010 and December 2020 were included in this retrospective analysis. The transcervical approach was compared to the transfemoral approach. In both procedures open-cell, closed-cell design and hybrid stents were used. In-hospital stroke was the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

A total of 340 procedures were performed, in 184 patients the transfemoral approach was used and in 156 patients the transcervical approach was used. In 12 patients (3.5%) an in-hospital stroke was diagnosed, 4 in the transfemoral group (2.2%) and 8 in the transcervical group (5.1%) (P = 0.14). In the multivariate analyses a symptomatic lesion was associated with in-hospital stroke. Neither type of access nor cell design was associated with increased risk of in-hospital stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to previous studies, we could not confirm the advantages of the transcervical approach. However, conclusions should be carefully drawn, since this study is retrospective and was performed with multiple surgeon and different kind of stents.

European Stroke Organisation guideline on endarterectomy and stenting for carotid artery stenosis

Atherosclerotic stenosis of the internal carotid artery is an important cause of stroke. The aim of this guideline is to analyse the evidence pertaining to medical, surgical and endovascular treatment of patients with carotid stenosis. These guidelines were developed based on the ESO standard operating procedure and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Based on moderate quality evidence, we recommend carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with ≥60-99% asymptomatic carotid stenosis considered to be at increased risk of stroke on best medical treatment (BMT) alone. We also recommend CEA for patients with ≥70-99% symptomatic stenosis, and we suggest CEA for patients with 50-69% symptomatic stenosis. Based on high quality evidence, we recommend CEA should be performed early, ideally within two weeks of the last retinal or cerebral ischaemic event in patients with ≥50-99% symptomatic stenosis. Based on low quality evidence, carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered in patients < 70 years old with symptomatic ≥50-99% carotid stenosis. Several randomised trials supporting these recommendations were started decades ago, and BMT, CEA and CAS have evolved since. The results of another large trial comparing outcomes after CAS versus CEA in patients with asymptomatic stenosis are anticipated in the near future. Further trials are needed to reassess the benefits of carotid revascularisation in combination with modern BMT in subgroups of patients with carotid stenosis.

Transcervical carotid artery revascularization: A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Carotid artery stenosis is considered a determinant factor for cerebrovascular events, estimated to be the cause of 10% to 20% of all ischemic strokes. Transcervical carotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been offered as an alternative to transfemoral carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy to treat carotid artery stenosis.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective studies reporting the outcomes of patients who had undergone TCAR for carotid artery stenosis. The incidence of periprocedural adverse events was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 45 studies with 14,588 patients met the predefined eligibility criteria and were included in the present meta-analysis. The technical success rate was 99% (95% confidence interval [CI], 98%-99%). The reasons for technical failure included an inability to cross the lesion and/or failure to deploy the stent. Access site complications occurred in 2% of all cases (95% CI, 1%-2%; 30 studies). Overall, the incidence of cranial nerve (CN) injuries was very rare, with only 33 of 8994 patients experiencing neurologic deficits attributed to CN involvement. Bleeding complications were reported by 20 studies and occurred in 2% (95% CI, 1%-3%) of all cases. The overall periprocedural all-cause mortality and stroke rate was 0.5% and 1.3%, respectively. In-stent restenosis was observed in 4 of 260 patients (1.5%; 7 studies), and early (30-day) reocclusion or acute thrombosis of the target lesion occurred in 12 of 1243 patients (∼1%; 11 studies).

CONCLUSIONS

The results from the present study have provided significant evidence that TCAR is a very promising and safe carotid revascularization approach with favorable technical success rates associated with low periprocedural stroke and CN injury rates.

Editor's Choice - Early and Late Outcomes after Transcarotid Revascularisation for Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Transcarotid/transcervical revascularisation (TCAR) is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid stenting (tfCAS). This review aimed to evaluate pooled data on patients undergoing TCAR.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were used.

REVIEW METHODS

This systematic review was conducted under Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Eligible studies (published online up to September 2020) reported 30 day mortality and stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) rates in patients undergoing TCAR. Data were pooled in a random effects model and weight of effect for each study was also reported. Quality of studies was evaluated according to Newcastle - Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies (three low, seven medium, and eight high quality) included 4 852 patients (4 867 TCAR procedures). The pooled 30 day mortality rate was 0.7% (n = 32) (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5 - 1.0), 30 day stroke rate 1.4% (n = 62) (95% CI 1.0 - 1.7), and 30 day stroke/TIA rate 2.0% (n = 92) (95% CI 1.4 - 2.7). Pooled technical success was 97.6% (95% CI 95.9 - 98.8). The cranial nerve injury rate was 1.2% (95% CI 0.7 - 1.9) (n = 14; data from 10 studies) while the early myocardial infarction (MI) rate was 0.4% (95% CI 0.2 - 0.6) (n = 16; data from 17 studies). The haematoma/bleeding rate was 3.4% (95% CI 1.7 - 5.8) (n = 135; data from 10 studies), with one third of these cases needing drainage or intervention. Within a follow up of 3 - 40 months the restenosis rate was 4% (95% CI 0.1 - 13.1) (data from nine studies; n = 64/530 patients) and death/stroke rate 4.5% (95% CI 1.8 - 8.4) (data from five studies; n = 184/3 742 patients). Symptomatic patients had a higher risk of early stroke/TIA than asymptomatic patients (2.5% vs. 1.2%; odds ratio 1.99; 95% CI 1.01 - 3.92); p = .046; data from eight studies).

CONCLUSION

TCAR is associated with promising early and late outcomes, with symptomatic patients having a higher risk of early cerebrovascular events. More prospective comparative studies are needed in order to verify TCAR as an established alternative treatment technique.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of carotid artery stenting using the transcervical approach

INTRODUCTION

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) via a transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) approach has emerged as an alternative when carotid endarterectomy or conventional CAS is contraindicated. The present study was conducted to assess the feasibility and safety of TCAR in patients with carotid artery stenosis.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the literature was performed, according to PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), using PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases. The primary outcomes included technical success, perioperative neurological event, myocardial ischemic events, death and their composite. Operational duration, flow reversal time and any local procedure related complication (carotid dissection and cranial nerve injury) were also recorded.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-three studies were included, reporting on 3130 patients, undergoing TCAR. Thirty-five per cent of them were symptomatic. Technical success was 98% (95% CI: 0.97-0.99; P=0.11, I²=32%). Early (30-day) new neurological event rate was estimated at 2% (95% CI: 0.01-0.02; P=1.0, I²=0%, respectively) while early death rate was 1% (95% CI: 0.00-0.01; P=1.0, I²=0%). Myocardial ischemic (MI) event rate was 1% (95% CI, 0.00-0.01, P=0.97, I²=6.6%). The composite outcome of neurological event/MI/death at 30-day follow-up was 2% (95% CI: 0.01-0.02, P=0.79, I²=14%). Carotid dissection rate during the intervention was 2% (95% CI: 0.01-0.03, P=0.58, I²=2.9%) while the post-operatively detected cranial nerve injury rate was 1% (95% CI, 0.00-0.01, P=1.0, I²=0%). Regarding the technical aspects of the procedures, operational and flow reversal time were at 73.8 min and 13.7 min, respectively (95% CI: 68.2-79.3, P=0.18, I²=37.6% and 95% CI: 11.3-16.1, P=0.48, I²=0%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

TCAR is feasible with high technical success rate. The procedure presents low incidence of local complications, neurological events, myocardial complications and mortality during the early postoperative period and should be considered an acceptable alternative for patients treated for carotid artery stenosis.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization with Dynamic Flow Reversal Versus Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) was introduced as a less invasive option for carotid revascularization in patients at high risk for complications from carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The increased perioperative stroke and death risk of TFCAS has however prevented TFCAS from widespread acceptance as an alternative to CEA in high-risk patients. Recent research suggests that transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) may be associated with a low stroke and death risk and potentially meet the needs of patients at high surgical risk. We aimed to estimate the 30-day risk of stroke or death of TCAR and compare it to TFCAS and CEA.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Scopus for studies of patients treated with TCAR. Meta-analysis was conducted when appropriate. A logistic-normal random-effects model with logit transformation was used to estimate the pooled event rates after TCAR. Pooled Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs) of events comparing TCAR to TFCAS and CEA were calculated using a fixed-effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was quantified with the chi-squared statistic of the likelihood ratio (LR) test that compares the random-effects and fixed-effects models.

RESULTS

Nine nonrandomized studies evaluating 4012 patients who underwent TCAR were included. The overall 30-day risks after TCAR were stroke/death, 1.89% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50, 2.37); stroke, 1.34% (95% CI: 1.02,1.75); death, 0.76% (95% CI: 0.56, 1.08); myocardial infarction (MI), 0.60% (95% CI: 0.23, 1.59); stroke/death/MI, 2.20% (95% CI: 1.31, 3.69); cranial nerve injury (CNI), 0.31% (95% CI: 0.12, 0.83). The failure rate of TCAR was 1.27% (95% CI: 0.32, 4.92). Two nonrandomized studies suggested that TCAR was associated with lower risk of stroke and death as compared with TFCAS (1.33% vs. 2.55%, OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.74 and 0.76% vs. 1.46%, OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.84, respectively). Four nonrandomized studies suggested that TCAR was associated with a lower risk of CNI (0.54% and 1.84%, OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.74) than CEA, but no statistically significant difference in the 30-day risk of stroke, stroke/death, or stroke/death/MI.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing TCAR with dynamic flow reversal for carotid stenosis the 30-day risk of stroke or death was low. The perioperative stroke/death rate of TCAR was similar to that of CEA while CNI risk was lower. Larger prospective studies are needed to account for confounding factors and provide higher certainty.

An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of results of transcervical carotid artery stenting with flow reversal

OBJECTIVE

Transcervical carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as an alternative to transfemoral CAS. An earlier systematic review from our group (n = 12 studies; 739 transcervical CAS procedures [489/739 with flow reversal]) demonstrated that transcervical CAS is a safe procedure associated with a low incidence of stroke and complications. Since then, new studies have been published adding nearly 1600 patients to the literature. We aimed to update our early systematic review and also to perform a meta-analysis to investigate outcomes specifically after transcervical CAS with flow reversal.

METHODS

An electronic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane databases was carried out to identify studies reporting outcomes after transcervical CAS with flow reversal. Crude event rates for outcomes of interest were estimated by simple pooling of data. A proportion meta-analysis was also performed to estimate pooled outcome rates.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies (n = 2110 transcervical CAS procedures with flow reversal) were identified. A high technical success (98.25%) and a low mortality rate (0.48%) were recorded. The crude rates of major stroke, minor stroke, transient ischemic attack, and myocardial infarction (MI) were 0.71%, 0.90%, 0.57%, and 0.57%, respectively; a cranial nerve injury occurred in 0.28% of the procedures. A neck hematoma was reported in 1.04% of the procedures, and a carotid artery dissection occurred in 0.76% of the interventions; in 1.09% of the cases, conversion to carotid endarterectomy was required. After a meta-analysis was undertaken, the pooled technical success rate was 98.69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 97.19-99.70). A pooled mortality rate of 0.04% (95% CI, 0.00-0.29) was recorded. The pooled rate of any type of neurologic complications was 1.88 (95% CI, 1.24-2.61), whereas the pooled rates of major stroke, minor stroke, and transient ischemic attack were 0.12% (95% CI, 0.00-0.46), 0.15% (95% CI, 0.00-0.50), and 0.01% (95% CI, 0.00-0.22), respectively. The pooled rate of bradycardia/hypotension was 10.21% (95% CI, 3.99-18.51), whereas the pooled rate of MI was 0.08% (95% CI, 0.00-0.39). A neck hematoma after transcervical CAS was recorded in 1.51% (95% CI, 0.22-3.54) of the procedures; in 0.74% (95% CI, 0.05-1.95) of the interventions, conversion to CEA was required. Finally, a carotid artery dissection during transcervical CAS occurred in 0.47% (95% CI, 0.00-1.38) of the procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that transcervical CAS with flow reversal is associated with high technical success, almost zero mortality, and low rates of major stroke, minor stroke, MI, and complications.

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.

Immediate and Delayed Procedural Stroke or Death in Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis

Background and Purpose- Stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis (carotid artery stenting [CAS]) carries a higher risk of procedural stroke or death than carotid endarterectomy (CEA). It is unclear whether this extra risk is present both on the day of procedure and within 1 to 30 days thereafter and whether clinical risk factors differ between these periods. Methods- We analyzed the risk of stroke or death occurring on the day of procedure (immediate procedural events) and within 1 to 30 days thereafter (delayed procedural events) in 4597 individual patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis who underwent CAS (n=2326) or CEA (n=2271) in 4 randomized trials. Results- Compared with CEA, patients treated with CAS were at greater risk for immediate procedural events (110 versus 42; 4.7% versus 1.9%; odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.9-3.8) but not for delayed procedural events (59 versus 46; 2.5% versus 2.0%; odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9-1.9; interaction P=0.006). In patients treated with CAS, age increased the risk for both immediate and delayed events while qualifying event severity only increased the risk of delayed events. In patients treated with CEA, we found no risk factors for immediate events while a higher level of disability at baseline and known history of hypertension were associated with delayed procedural events. Conclusions- The increased procedural stroke or death risk associated with CAS compared with CEA was caused by an excess of events occurring on the day of procedure. This finding demonstrates the need to enhance the procedural safety of CAS by technical improvements of the procedure and increased operator skill. Higher age increased the risk for both immediate and delayed procedural events in CAS, mechanisms of which remain to be elucidated. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00190398. URL: http://www.isrctn.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028. URL: http://www.isrctn.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN25337470. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

Direct Transcervical Access vs the Transfemoral Approach for Carotid Artery Stenting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To examine the safety profile of transcervical access (TCA) in comparison with the transfemoral approach (TFA) in carotid artery stenting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to current guidelines. Eleven eligible studies including 11,592 patients (10,736 in the TFA group and 856 in the TCA group) were identified through a search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases up to October 2018. A random effects model meta-analysis was conducted, and the I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and quantified using the Egger method.

RESULTS

The TFA group had a statistically significantly higher risk of periprocedural (30-day) stroke compared with the TCA group (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.63, p=0.027; I2=0%). Also, patients in the TFA group had a significantly higher risk of developing new ischemic lesions (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.48 to 5.96, p=0.002; I2=0%) on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI). No differences in terms of transient ischemic attack (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.10, p=0.268; I2=5.9%), myocardial infarction (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.35; p=0.242; I2=0%), local hematoma (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.25, p=0.389; I2=0%), or mortality (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.92, p=0.449; I2=0%) were identified between the groups.

CONCLUSION

TCA is associated with a significantly lower risk for periprocedural stroke and DW-MRI ischemic lesions compared with TFA. Other periprocedural outcomes were similar between the groups.

Silent brain infarcts on diffusion-weighted imaging after carotid revascularisation: A surrogate outcome measure for procedural stroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

To investigate whether lesions on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI+) after carotid artery stenting (CAS) or endarterectomy (CEA) might provide a surrogate outcome measure for procedural stroke.

Materials and Methods

Systematic MedLine® database search with selection of all studies published up to the end of 2016 in which DWI scans were obtained before and within seven days after CAS or CEA. The correlation between the underlying log odds of stroke and of DWI+ across all treatment groups (i.e. CAS or CEA groups) from included studies was estimated using a bivariate random effects logistic regression model. Relative risks of DWI+ and stroke in studies comparing CAS vs. CEA were estimated using fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel models.

Results

We included data of 4871 CAS and 2099 CEA procedures (85 studies). Across all treatment groups (CAS and CEA), the log odds for DWI+ was significantly associated with the log odds for clinically manifest stroke (correlation coefficient 0.61 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.87), p = 0.0012). Across all carotid artery stenting groups, the correlation coefficient was 0.19 (p = 0.074). There were too few CEA groups to reliably estimate a correlation coefficient in this subset alone. In 19 studies comparing CAS vs. CEA, the relative risks (95% confidence intervals) of DWI+ and stroke were 3.83 (3.17-4.63, p < 0.00001) and 2.38 (1.44-3.94, p = 0.0007), respectively.

Discussion

This systematic meta-analysis demonstrates a correlation between the occurrence of silent brain infarcts on diffusion-weighted imaging and the risk of clinically manifest stroke in carotid revascularisation procedures.

Conclusion

Our findings strengthen the evidence base for the use of DWI as a surrogate outcome measure for procedural stroke in carotid revascularisation procedures. Further randomised studies comparing treatment effects on DWI lesions and clinical stroke are needed to fully establish surrogacy.

Direct percutaneous carotid access for carotid angioplasty and stenting

PURPOSE

To describe a direct percutaneous carotid access technique for carotid artery stenting (CAS) that circumvents the potential for embolization that can occur during catheter manipulation in the aortic arch during femoral access.

TECHNIQUE

After inducing anesthesia, an ultrasound transducer is placed at the base of the neck above the clavicle. A 21-G, 7-cm needle from a micropuncture introducer is used for single-wall puncture of the common carotid artery (CCA). A 0.018-inch guidewire is inserted into the needle for placement of a 4-F, 10-cm introducer. After placing a 0.035-inch angled guidewire in the external carotid artery, the 4-F introducer is exchanged for the closure device sheath (preclose technique). A regular 6-F introducer is then placed inside the closure device sheath, and a low dose (2000 units) of heparin is administered for the brief CAS procedure, which is performed under cerebral protection. After a successful procedure is confirmed, the protection device is retrieved, and the closure device is applied to seal the puncture.

CONCLUSION

This approach has a low rate of neurological and access site complications. Percutaneous direct carotid access could extend the indications for CAS to include difficult anatomies, high-risk patients, and certain emergent situations that warrant easy and rapid access to the CCA.

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.

Results of carotid artery stenting with transcervical access

OBJECTIVE

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is usually performed with femoral access; however, this access may be impeded by anatomic limitations. Moreover, many embolic events happen during aortic arch catheterization. To overcome these problems, transcervical access to the carotid artery can be used as an alternative approach for CAS.

METHODS

An electronic search of the literature using PubMed was performed. All studies reporting the results of CAS using the transcervical approach were retrieved and analyzed.

RESULTS

The analysis included 12 studies reporting the results of 739 CAS procedures performed in 722 patients (mean age, 75.5 years). Of 533 lesions reported, 235 (44%) were symptomatic, with no data regarding symptomatic status available for 206 lesions. Two techniques were used: direct CAS with transcervical access (filter protected or unprotected) in 250 patients and CAS with transcervical access under reversed flow (with arteriovenous shunt in most cases) in 489 patients. Local anesthesia was used in 464 of 739 procedures (63%), and the remaining were performed under general anesthesia or cervical block. Technical success was 96.3% for 579 procedures with available data (558 successful procedures and 21 failures: inability to cross the lesion, 10; dissection, 5; failure of predilatation, 1; stent thrombosis, 1; patient agitation, 1; and no data, 3). The incidence of conversion to open repair was 3.0% (20 of 579 procedures: 18 carotid endarterectomies and two common carotid-internal carotid bypass grafts). Stroke occurred in eight patients (two fatal) and a fatal myocardial infarction in one patient. The incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction, and death was 1.1%, 0.14%, and 0.41%, respectively. The incidence of stroke was 1.2% (3 of 250) in direct CAS with transcervical access and 1.02% (5 of 489) in CAS under reversed flow (P > .05). Transient ischemic attack occurred in 20 patients (2.7%). Local complications were encountered in 17 of 579 CAS (2.9%), comprising 15 hematomas and two patients with transient laryngeal palsy.

CONCLUSIONS

CAS with the transcervical approach is a safe procedure with low incidence of stroke and complications. It can be used as an alternative to femoral access in patients with unfavorable aortoiliac or aortic arch anatomy.

The clinical results of transcervical carotid artery stenting and frequency chosen as the approach route of carotid artery stenting in 1,067 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is generally performed via a transfemoral approach. A transbrachial approach is usually chosen as an alternative when CAS via a transfemoral approach is difficult. At our institutions, a transcervical approach is chosen when the previous two approach routes are not available. We reviewed CAS cases treated via the transcervical route in our 1,067 CAS series to investigate the safety, feasibility, and frequency of this procedure as an approach route of CAS.

METHODS

We performed 1,067 CAS procedures in 1,067 consecutive cases between December 2002 and June 2011. Initially, a transfemoral route was chosen, and secondarily a transbrachial route, the last choice was a transcervical route. A transbrachial approach was chosen in 96 (9.0%) cases and a transcervical approach in ten (0.9%). We reviewed the characteristics and outcomes of CAS performed via a transcervical approach.

RESULTS

CAS was successfully performed on all ten transcervical-approach patients. Eight procedures were performed under local anesthesia and two under general anesthesia. Perioperative morbidity and mortality were both 0%. The modified Rankin scale (mRS) showed no deterioration at 3 months except for one case whose mRS became five because of an embolic stroke after aortic valve replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

CAS via a transcervical approach was safe and feasible, and its frequency chosen as an approach route was 0.9%. This procedure can be an alternative to transfemoral or transbrachial approaches when CAS via either of these approaches is too difficult.