PURPOSE: Carotid artery stent placement may be limited by the embolization of atheromatous material. We evaluated the safety and feasibility of the Medtronic Self-Expanding Carotid Stent (Exponent) in combination with the Medtronic Interceptor Carotid Filter System for the treatment of carotid stenosis among patients at high risk for carotid endarterectomy. METHODS: Patients at high risk for carotid endarterectomy but amenable to percutaneous treatment with stent placement were enrolled. Clinical follow-up was performed at 30 days and 6 and 12 months postprocedure. The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was assessed before and within 3 days postprocedure and at 30 days and 6 months postprocedure. Angiography was performed pre- and postprocedure, and carotid duplex scans were performed at baseline and at 30 days and 6 months. RESULTS: Fifty-two carotid procedures were performed in 51 patients (mean age, 69 years; 84% of patients were men). The major adverse event (MAE) rate (death, stroke, and myocardial infarction [MI]) at 30 days was 5.9%: 2 strokes and a single death from periprocedural MI. MAE rates after 6 and 12 months were 5.9% and 11.8%, respectively. The delivery success rate was 94.2% (49/52) for the Interceptor Filter System and 95.9% (47/49) for the Exponent Stent. The mean diameter stenosis of the target lesion was reduced from 62.4% preprocedure to 21.2% postprocedure. CONCLUSION: High delivery success rates were achieved with a low rate of MAE (death, stroke, or MI) in a high-risk population. Treatment of carotid artery disease with the Exponent Carotid Stent combined with distal protection from the Interceptor Filter System is effective and safe.
PURPOSE: Carotid artery stent placement may be limited by the embolization of atheromatous material. We evaluated the safety and feasibility of the Medtronic Self-Expanding Carotid Stent (Exponent) in combination with the Medtronic Interceptor Carotid Filter System for the treatment of carotid stenosis among patients at high risk for carotid endarterectomy. METHODS:Patients at high risk for carotid endarterectomy but amenable to percutaneous treatment with stent placement were enrolled. Clinical follow-up was performed at 30 days and 6 and 12 months postprocedure. The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was assessed before and within 3 days postprocedure and at 30 days and 6 months postprocedure. Angiography was performed pre- and postprocedure, and carotid duplex scans were performed at baseline and at 30 days and 6 months. RESULTS: Fifty-two carotid procedures were performed in 51 patients (mean age, 69 years; 84% of patients were men). The major adverse event (MAE) rate (death, stroke, and myocardial infarction [MI]) at 30 days was 5.9%: 2 strokes and a single death from periprocedural MI. MAE rates after 6 and 12 months were 5.9% and 11.8%, respectively. The delivery success rate was 94.2% (49/52) for the Interceptor Filter System and 95.9% (47/49) for the Exponent Stent. The mean diameter stenosis of the target lesion was reduced from 62.4% preprocedure to 21.2% postprocedure. CONCLUSION: High delivery success rates were achieved with a low rate of MAE (death, stroke, or MI) in a high-risk population. Treatment of carotid artery disease with the Exponent Carotid Stent combined with distal protection from the Interceptor Filter System is effective and safe.
Authors: A I Qureshi; A R Luft; V Janardhan; M F Suri; M Sharma; G Lanzino; A K Wakhloo; L R Guterman; L N Hopkins Journal: Stroke Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: B Reimers; N Corvaja; S Moshiri; S Saccà; R Albiero; C Di Mario; P Pascotto; A Colombo Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-07-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Andreas Kastrup; Klaus Gröschel; Hilmar Krapf; Bernhard R Brehm; Johannes Dichgans; Jörg B Schulz Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-02-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Patrick L Whitlow; Pedro Lylyk; Hugo Londero; Oscar A Mendiz; Klaus Mathias; Horst Jaeger; Juan Parodi; Claudio Schönholz; Jose Milei Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: R G Ackerstaff; K G Moons; C J van de Vlasakker; F L Moll; F E Vermeulen; A Algra; M P Spencer Journal: Stroke Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jay S Yadav; Mark H Wholey; Richard E Kuntz; Pierre Fayad; Barry T Katzen; Gregory J Mishkel; Tanvir K Bajwa; Patrick Whitlow; Neil E Strickman; Michael R Jaff; Jeffrey J Popma; David B Snead; Donald E Cutlip; Brian G Firth; Kenneth Ouriel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: H J M Barnett; D W Taylor; R B Haynes; D L Sackett; S J Peerless; G G Ferguson; A J Fox; R N Rankin; V C Hachinski; D O Wiebers; M Eliasziw Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-08-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: D Stojanov; M Ilic; P Bosnjakovic; M Zivkovic; S Jolic; N Vukasinovic; A Ignjatovic; B Ilic; D Benedeto-Stojanov Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 3.825
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
Authors: Christopher K Zarins; Rodney A White; Edward B Diethrich; Rebecca J Shackelton; Flora S Siami Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Suk Jung Kim; Hong Gee Roh; Pyoung Jeon; Keon Ha Kim; Kwang Ho Lee; Hong Sik Byun; Won Jin Moon; Gyeong Moon Kim; Young Wook Kim; Dong Ik Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2007 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Adam Mazurek; Krzysztof Malinowski; Kenneth Rosenfield; Laura Capoccia; Francesco Speziale; Gianmarco de Donato; Carlo Setacci; Christian Wissgott; Pasqualino Sirignano; Lukasz Tekieli; Andrey Karpenko; Waclaw Kuczmik; Eugenio Stabile; David Christopher Metzger; Max Amor; Adnan H Siddiqui; Antonio Micari; Piotr Pieniążek; Alberto Cremonesi; Joachim Schofer; Andrej Schmidt; Piotr Musialek Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 4.964