Literature DB >> 15944592

The capture of visible debris by distal cerebral protection filters during carotid artery stenting: Is it predictable?

L Richard Sprouse1, Patrick Peeters, Marc Bosiers.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Neurologic complications during carotid artery stenting (CAS) are most clearly associated with embolization of visible debris. Distal filter devices may provide cerebral protection by capturing clinically significant debris. However, they increase procedural time and expense and have their own set of complications. The current study was undertaken to identify the clinical factors predictive for the presence or absence of visible debris captured by distal filter devices during CAS.
METHODS: Patients undergoing CAS with use of a distal filter device (n = 279) were prospectively entered into an investigational carotid registry. Recorded variables were classified as patient-, lesion-, or procedure-related. The filter was assessed for visible debris in each case. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined for each variable to predict visible debris. The ability of each variable to predict the absence of visible debris was assessed by calculating the individual negative predictive value (NPV).
RESULTS: Visible debris was present in 169 filters (60.3%). There was an increased risk of visible debris found with several variables (OR, 95% CI): hypertension (2.9, 1.7 to 5.2), hypercholesterolemia (2.3, 1.4 to 3.9), stent diameter >9 mm (16.6, 9.0 to 30.0), and any neurologic event (4.2, 1.5 to 9.9). The NPV failed to exceed 0.80 (80%) for any variable. The NPV of the variables with a significantly elevated OR was as follows: hypertension (0.60), hypercholesterolemia (0.52), stent diameter >9 mm (0.75), and any neurologic event (0.38).
CONCLUSIONS: Several clinical variables are associated with the presence of visible debris captured by distal filter devices. The current study failed to identify any variables capable of consistently predicting the absence of visible debris. These findings support the routine rather than the selective use of cerebral protection during CAS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15944592     DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2005.02.048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Surg        ISSN: 0741-5214            Impact factor:   4.268


  6 in total

1.  Intraprocedural plaque protrusion resulting in cerebral embolism during carotid angioplasty with stenting.

Authors:  Hiroshi Aikawa; Tomonobu Kodama; Kouhei Nii; Masanori Tsutsumi; Masanari Onizuka; Minoru Iko; Shuko Matsubara; Housei Etou; Kimiya Sakamoto; Kiyoshi Kazekawa
Journal:  Radiat Med       Date:  2008-07-27

Review 2.  Management of extracranial carotid artery disease.

Authors:  Yinn Cher Ooi; Nestor R Gonzalez
Journal:  Cardiol Clin       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 2.213

3.  Cerebral ischemia after filter-protected carotid artery stenting is common and cannot be predicted by the presence of substantial amount of debris captured by the filter device.

Authors:  G Maleux; P Demaerel; E Verbeken; K Daenens; S Heye; F Van Sonhoven; A Nevelsteen; G Wilms
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 3.825

4.  The association of clinical variables and filter design with carotid artery stenting thirty-day outcome.

Authors:  G M Siewiorek; R T Krafty; M H Wholey; E A Finol
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2011-04-29       Impact factor: 7.069

5.  Risk of distal embolization with stent retriever thrombectomy and ADAPT.

Authors:  Ju-Yu Chueh; Ajit S Puri; Ajay K Wakhloo; Matthew J Gounis
Journal:  J Neurointerv Surg       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 5.836

6.  Safety and efficacy of the SeparGate™ balloon-guiding catheter in neurointerventional surgery: Study protocol of a prospective multicenter single-arm clinical trial.

Authors:  Huan Liu; Tianxiao Li; Zhaoshuo Li; Liangfu Zhu; Yingkun He
Journal:  J Interv Med       Date:  2020-03-29
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.