OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to review our experience with embolic protection devices (EPDs) during carotid artery stenting (CAS). Specifically, we aimed to verify their clinical effectiveness and to compare clinical outcomes between specific devices and types of EPDs. METHODS: The CAS databases at four participating centers were reviewed. Adverse events were defined as death, stroke (>24 hours), or transient ischemic attack (TIA) (<24 hours). We compared the risk of procedural and 30-day events between patients treated with and without an EPD. We also compared these risks between different EPDs and between the different types of EPDs. RESULTS: A total of 3160 CAS procedures using nine EPDs were analyzed. The risk of a procedural adverse event was 0.9% in protected and 2.3% in unprotected procedures (P = .12). Compared with the most frequently used device (FilterWire, Boston Scientific, Natick, Mass), there was no significant difference in the risk of procedural adverse events for any of the other EPDs. There was, however, an increased risk of 30-day adverse events with the Accunet (Abbott Vascular, Redwood, Calif) filter compared with the FilterWire (relative risk [RR] 2.67, confidence interval [CI] 1.41 to 5.04, P = .005). Pairwise comparison of proximal occlusion balloons to filters, distal occlusion balloons to filters, and proximal to distal occlusion balloons revealed no significant difference in the risk of procedural or 30-day adverse events. There was no significant difference in risk of procedural events between eccentric and concentric filters, however, the relative risk of eccentric compared with concentric filters at 30 days was 0.59 (unadjusted, CI 0.38 to 0.92, P = .04). This difference was still apparent after adjustment for risk factors (RR 0.61, CI 0.39 to 0.95, P = .06), but not after adjustment for risk factors and stent-type [(open-cell vs closed-cell) RR 0.76, CI 0.47 to 1.22, P = .51]. CONCLUSION: The use of EPDs is associated with a low risk of procedural adverse events. We were unable to detect significant differences in risks of procedural adverse events between different devices or types of devices. We speculate that the observed differences seen at 30 days are largely attributable to differences in stent-type used.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to review our experience with embolic protection devices (EPDs) during carotid artery stenting (CAS). Specifically, we aimed to verify their clinical effectiveness and to compare clinical outcomes between specific devices and types of EPDs. METHODS: The CAS databases at four participating centers were reviewed. Adverse events were defined as death, stroke (>24 hours), or transient ischemic attack (TIA) (<24 hours). We compared the risk of procedural and 30-day events between patients treated with and without an EPD. We also compared these risks between different EPDs and between the different types of EPDs. RESULTS: A total of 3160 CAS procedures using nine EPDs were analyzed. The risk of a procedural adverse event was 0.9% in protected and 2.3% in unprotected procedures (P = .12). Compared with the most frequently used device (FilterWire, Boston Scientific, Natick, Mass), there was no significant difference in the risk of procedural adverse events for any of the other EPDs. There was, however, an increased risk of 30-day adverse events with the Accunet (Abbott Vascular, Redwood, Calif) filter compared with the FilterWire (relative risk [RR] 2.67, confidence interval [CI] 1.41 to 5.04, P = .005). Pairwise comparison of proximal occlusion balloons to filters, distal occlusion balloons to filters, and proximal to distal occlusion balloons revealed no significant difference in the risk of procedural or 30-day adverse events. There was no significant difference in risk of procedural events between eccentric and concentric filters, however, the relative risk of eccentric compared with concentric filters at 30 days was 0.59 (unadjusted, CI 0.38 to 0.92, P = .04). This difference was still apparent after adjustment for risk factors (RR 0.61, CI 0.39 to 0.95, P = .06), but not after adjustment for risk factors and stent-type [(open-cell vs closed-cell) RR 0.76, CI 0.47 to 1.22, P = .51]. CONCLUSION: The use of EPDs is associated with a low risk of procedural adverse events. We were unable to detect significant differences in risks of procedural adverse events between different devices or types of devices. We speculate that the observed differences seen at 30 days are largely attributable to differences in stent-type used.
Authors: A Kastrup; K Gröschel; T Nägele; A Riecker; F Schmidt; S Schnaudigel; U Ernemann Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-12-07 Impact factor: 3.825
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: Firas Ghanem; Deepthi Vodnala; Jagadeesh K Kalavakunta; Sridevi Durga; Noah Thormeier; Prem Subramaniyam; Scott Abela; George S Abela Journal: J Biomed Res Date: 2017-01-19