Commentary: Matching the Anatomy With the Technique and Vascular Approach in Carotid Artery Stenting. The Role of Systematic Multidetector CT Angiography

Transradial/brachial carotid artery stenting with proximal protection: technical instructions, acute results and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of transradial/brachial (TR/TB) carotid artery stenting (CAS) with proximal cerebral protection (PCP) as a first line of treatment of carotid artery stenosis.

METHODS

Among 556 patients with significant (>50% if symptomatic or >70% if asymptomatic by Doppler US) unilateral, lipid-rich carotid artery stenosis undergoing TR/TB CAS, 137 (24.5%) deemed at high-risk for periprocedural cerebral embolization were scheduled for PCP with Mo.MA Ultra or Mo.MA mono-balloon. In patients with very complex anatomy the standard technique was modified loading the Mo.MA catheter without mandrel on two-wire system (so called 'No MAndrel 2 wire' technique, No.MA2) to increase support and deliverability. Device, technical and procedural successes both acute and at follow-up were the main outcomes.

RESULTS

Mean patients' age was 74±7 years (93% male), 15% were symptomatic and 59.6% owned 'high-surgical-risk' features. Stenosis degree was 85±7% with soft composition in all (by CT-angiography). TR and TB approach were selected in 92 (67%) and 45 (33%) patients, respectively. Target carotid axes were right, left bovine and left non bovine in 55%, 38% and 7% of patients. Procedures were successfully completed in all patients (intention-to-treat basis) with the standard Mo.MA Ultra system in 129 patients and the Mo.MA mono-balloon in 8 patients. No.MA2 technique was succesfully used in 16 patients as 'bailout' and in 27 patients as 'first line'). Device and technical success was 97% (133/137 patients) due to crossover to femoral access in 3 cases, and Mo.MA too short to engage the ECA in 1 patient. The procedural success was 96.7% (131/137, two minor strokes). Procedural time and fluoroscopy time were increased with No.MA2 technique. One major vascular complication occurred, in the TB group, while chronic radial occlusion was detected by Doppler ultrasound in 7/92 patients (7.1%) at 372±163 days of follow-up. The event-free survival was 91% and the stroke rate was 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

TR/TB CAS with proximal protection is a feasible, safe and effective strategy and may be considered a first line strategy in all comer patients.

Absolute and relative contraindications to proximal protection: do they really matter? A case-illustrative approach

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an established technique to treat carotid artery stenosis. Favorable results have been reported in different subsets of patients in both acute and long-term settings. Among the CAS periprocedural variables the type of cerebral protection - distal filter and proximal protection - play a pivot role to reduce cerebral embolization. Accumulating evidence is in favor of better performance of proximal protection vs. distal filters. However, the rate of worldwide penetration of this devise is low. Potential reasons include a lengthy list of technical issues that may account for the reluctance of filter-oriented operators to change systems. This paper shows how to identify, treat, and overcome these technical obstacles.

Transradial approach for carotid artery stenting: A position paper from the Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE)

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a valid and effective alternative to endoatherectomy when performed by experienced operators. The conventional approach used is the transfemoral one, but in the last 10 years a transradial (TR) approach, the standard access for cardiac catheterization, became widely adopted for peripheral vascular interventions, included the extracranial carotids. Preliminary experiences suggest this approach as safe and effective, especially in specific anatomical and clinical settings that have been shown to be associated with high risk of complications from the femoral route. Lacking international guidelines, this document, promoted by the Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology - Gruppo Italiano Studi Emodinamici (SICI-GISE), was drawn-up by a panel of interventional cardiologists with a documented experience on the subject, focusing on the indications, techniques and materials that should be used for this type of intervention and the most recent literature on the subject.

Carotid Artery Stenting With Proximal Embolic Protection via a Transradial or Transbrachial Approach: Pushing the Boundaries of the Technique While Maintaining Safety and Efficacy

PURPOSE

To compare the feasibility and safety of proximal cerebral protection to a distal filter during carotid artery stenting (CAS) via a transbrachial (TB) or transradial (TR) approach.

METHODS

Among 856 patients who underwent CAS between January 2007 and July 2015, 214 (25%) patients (mean age 72±8 years; 154 men) had the procedure via a TR (n=154) or TB (n=60) approach with either Mo.MA proximal protection (n=61) or distal filter protection (n=153). The Mo.MA group (mean age 73±7 years; 54 men) had significantly more men and more severe stenosis than the filter group (mean age 71±8 years; 100 men). Stent type and CAS technique were left to operator discretion. Heparin and a dedicated closure device or bivalirudin and manual compression were used in TR and TB accesses, respectively. Technical and procedure success, crossover to femoral artery, 30-day major adverse cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events (MACCE; death, all strokes, and myocardial infarction), vascular complications, and radiation exposure were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Crossover to a femoral approach was required in 1/61 (1.6%) Mo.MA patient vs 11/153 (7.1%) filter patients mainly due to technical difficulty in engaging the target vessel. Five Mo.MA patients developed acute intolerance to proximal occlusion; 4 were successfully shifted to filter protection. A TR patient was shifted to filter because the Mo.MA system was too short. CAS was technically successful in the remaining 55 (90%) Mo.MA patients and 142 (93%) filter patients. The MACCE rate was 0% in the Mo.MA patients and 2.8% in the filter group (p=0.18). Radiation exposure was similar between groups. Major vascular complications occurred in 1/61 (1.6%) and in 3/153 (1.96%) patients in the Mo.MA and filter groups (p=0.18), respectively, and were confined to the TB approach in the early part of the learning curve. Chronic radial artery occlusion was detected by Doppler ultrasound in 2/30 (6.6%) Mo.MA patients and in 4/124 (3.2%) filter patients by clinical assessment (p=0.25) at 8.1±7.5-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

CAS with proximal protection via a TR or TB approach is a feasible, safe, and effective technique with a low rate of vascular complications.