OBJECTIVE: To report the feasibility, safety, and 1-month results of performing stent placement for vertebral origin stenosis with the use of a distal protection device. Distal protection devices have been shown to reduce the number of cerebral emboli and subsequent ischemic events when used as adjuncts to percutaneous carotid intervention; however, one case of the use of a distal protection device for vertebral artery has been reported in the literature. METHODS: We retrospectively determined rates of technical success and 1-month stroke or death associated with stent placement by using distal protection (Filter EX; Boston Scientific, Natick, Mass) in patients with symptomatic vertebral artery origin stenosis. Technical success was defined as successful deployment of distal protection device and stent at target lesion followed by successful retrieval of the device and a final residual stenosis of less than 30%. Other outcomes ascertained included any stroke, death, and semiquantitative assessment of particulate material retained by the filter device. RESULTS: The mean age of the 12 treated patients was 68 years (range, 52-88 years) and the group included 9 men and 3 women. The mean percentage of vertebral artery origin stenosis was 71 +/- 6%. Femoral and radial approaches were used in 9 and 3 cases, respectively. Technical success was achieved in 11 of the 12 patients in whom distal protection device placement was attempted. Postprocedure residual stenosis was 5 +/- 4%. Eight devices held macroscopically visible embolic debris (large and small amounts in 3 and 5 devices, respectively). No stroke or death was observed in the 1-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates the feasibility of performing stent placement for vertebral artery origin stenosis by using a distal protection device. Further studies are required to determine the effectiveness of this approach for vertebral artery origin atherosclerosis.
OBJECTIVE: To report the feasibility, safety, and 1-month results of performing stent placement for vertebral origin stenosis with the use of a distal protection device. Distal protection devices have been shown to reduce the number of cerebral emboli and subsequent ischemic events when used as adjuncts to percutaneous carotid intervention; however, one case of the use of a distal protection device for vertebral artery has been reported in the literature. METHODS: We retrospectively determined rates of technical success and 1-month stroke or death associated with stent placement by using distal protection (Filter EX; Boston Scientific, Natick, Mass) in patients with symptomatic vertebral artery origin stenosis. Technical success was defined as successful deployment of distal protection device and stent at target lesion followed by successful retrieval of the device and a final residual stenosis of less than 30%. Other outcomes ascertained included any stroke, death, and semiquantitative assessment of particulate material retained by the filter device. RESULTS: The mean age of the 12 treated patients was 68 years (range, 52-88 years) and the group included 9 men and 3 women. The mean percentage of vertebral artery origin stenosis was 71 +/- 6%. Femoral and radial approaches were used in 9 and 3 cases, respectively. Technical success was achieved in 11 of the 12 patients in whom distal protection device placement was attempted. Postprocedure residual stenosis was 5 +/- 4%. Eight devices held macroscopically visible embolic debris (large and small amounts in 3 and 5 devices, respectively). No stroke or death was observed in the 1-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates the feasibility of performing stent placement for vertebral artery origin stenosis by using a distal protection device. Further studies are required to determine the effectiveness of this approach for vertebral artery origin atherosclerosis.
Authors: E Janssens; X Leclerc; C Gautier; O Godefroy; M Koussa; H Hénon; C Lucas; D Leys; J P Pruvo Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2003-12-04 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: J S Jenkins; C J White; S R Ramee; T J Collins; V K Chilakamarri; K L McKinley; S P Jain Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: G C Cloud; F Crawley; A Clifton; D J H McCabe; M M Brown; H S Markus Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Louis R Caplan; Robert J Wityk; Thomas A Glass; Jorge Tapia; Ladislav Pazdera; Hui-Meng Chang; Phillip Teal; John F Dashe; Claudia J Chaves; Joan C Breen; Kostas Vemmos; Pierre Amarenco; Barbara Tettenborn; Megan Leary; Conrad Estol; L Dana Dewitt; Michael S Pessin Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Elad I Levy; Stanley H Kim; Bernard R Bendok; Adnan I Qureshi; Lee R Guterman; L Nelson Hopkins Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Sun Young Chung; Deok Hee Lee; Jin Woo Choi; Byung Se Choi; Hyun Sin In; Sun Mi Kim; Choong Gon Choi; Sang Joon Kim; Dae Chul Suh Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2010-02-22 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Robert A Taylor; Farhan Siddiq; Muhammad Zeeshan Memon; Adnan I Qureshi; Gabriela Vazquez; Minako Hayakawa; John C Chaloupka Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2009-05-13 Impact factor: 2.804