Literature DB >> 21982309

Microembolization during carotid artery stenting in patients with high-risk, lipid-rich plaque. A randomized trial of proximal versus distal cerebral protection.

Piero Montorsi1, Luigi Caputi, Stefano Galli, Elisa Ciceri, Giovanni Ballerini, Marco Agrifoglio, Paolo Ravagnani, Daniela Trabattoni, Gianluca Pontone, Franco Fabbiocchi, Alessandro Loaldi, Eugenio Parati, Daniele Andreini, Fabrizio Veglia, Antonio L Bartorelli.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to compare the rate of cerebral microembolization during carotid artery stenting (CAS) with proximal versus distal cerebral protection in patients with high-risk, lipid-rich plaque.
BACKGROUND: Cerebral protection with filters partially reduces the cerebral embolization rate during CAS. Proximal protection has been introduced to further decrease embolization risk.
METHODS: Fifty-three consecutive patients with carotid artery stenosis and lipid-rich plaque were randomized to undergo CAS with proximal protection (MO.MA system, n = 26) or distal protection with a filter (FilterWire EZ, n = 27). Microembolic signals (MES) were assessed by using transcranial Doppler during: 1) lesion wiring; 2) pre-dilation; 3) stent crossing; 4) stent deployment; 5) stent dilation; and 6) device retrieval/deflation. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging was conducted before CAS, after 48 h, and after 30 days.
RESULTS: Patients in the MO.MA group had higher percentage diameter stenosis (89 ± 6% vs. 86 ± 5%, p = 0.027) and rate of ulcerated plaque (35% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.019). Compared with use of the FilterWire EZ, MO.MA significantly reduced mean MES counts (p < 0.0001) during lesion crossing (mean 18 [interquartile range (IQR): 11 to 30] vs. 2 [IQR: 0 to 4]), stent crossing (23 [IQR: 11 to 34] vs. 0 [IQR: 0 to 1]), stent deployment (30 [IQR: 9 to 35] vs. 0 [IQR: 0 to 1]), stent dilation (16 [IQR: 8 to 30] vs. 0 [IQR: 0 to 1]), and total MES (93 [IQR: 59 to 136] vs. 16 [IQR: 7 to 36]). The number of patients with MES was higher with the FilterWire EZ versus MO.MA in phases 3 to 5 (100% vs. 27%; p < 0.0001). By multivariate analysis, the type of brain protection was the only independent predictor of total MES number. No significant difference was found in the number of patients with new post-CAS embolic lesion in the MO.MA group (2 of 14, 14%) as compared with the FilterWire EZ group (9 of 21, 42.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with high-risk, lipid-rich plaque undergoing CAS, MO.MA led to significantly lower microembolization as assessed by using MES counts.
Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21982309     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.07.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  29 in total

Review 1.  Carotid Artery Stenting-Historical Context, Trends, and Innovations.

Authors:  Miloslav Spacek; Josef Veselka
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2015-08-19

Review 2.  Predicting Hemodynamic Changes of Cerebral Blood Flow during Temporal Carotid Occlusion: A Review of Current Knowledge with Implication for Carotid Artery Stenting.

Authors:  Miloslav Spacek; Cyril Stechovsky; Martin Horvath; Petr Hajek; Josef Veselka
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2015-06-26

Review 3.  State of the art in carotid artery stenting: trial data, technical aspects, and limitations.

Authors:  Rajan A G Patel
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2014-04-26       Impact factor: 4.132

4.  Carotid artery stenting with proximal embolic protection via the transbrachial approach: sheathless navigation of a 9-F balloon-guiding catheter.

Authors:  Junpei Koge; Tomonori Iwata; Tetsuya Hashimoto; Shigehisa Mizuta; Yukihiko Nakamura; Eri Tanaka; Masakazu Kawajiri; Shun-Ichi Matsumoto; Takeshi Yamada
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2018-08-22       Impact factor: 2.804

Review 5.  Interventions for Extracranial Carotid Artery Stenosis: An Update.

Authors:  Josephine F Huang; James F Meschia
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2016-05

6.  National Patterns of Carotid Revascularization Before and After the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST).

Authors:  Fadar Oliver Otite; Priyank Khandelwal; Amer M Malik; Seemant Chaturvedi
Journal:  JAMA Neurol       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 18.302

7.  Predictors of minor versus major stroke during carotid artery stenting: results from the carotid artery stenting (CAS) registry of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausärzte (ALKK).

Authors:  Stephan Staubach; Ralph Hein-Rothweiler; Matthias Hochadel; Manuela Segerer; Ralf Zahn; Jens Jung; Gotthard Riess; Hubert Seggewiss; Andre Schneider; Thomas Fürste; Christian Gottkehaskamp; Harald Mudra
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2014-01-11       Impact factor: 5.460

8.  Effect of Thrombus Composition and Viscosity on Sonoreperfusion Efficacy in a Model of Micro-Vascular Obstruction.

Authors:  John J Black; Francois T H Yu; Rick G Schnatz; Xucai Chen; Flordeliza S Villanueva; John J Pacella
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 2.998

9.  [Carotid artery stenting technique].

Authors:  J Schofer; K Bijuklic
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 1.443

10.  Safety of carotid artery stenting for elderly patients with cervical carotid artery stenosis.

Authors:  Akira Taguchi; Shigeyuki Sakamoto; Takahito Okazaki; Jumpei Oshita; Masashi Kuwabara; Kaoru Kurisu
Journal:  Interv Neuroradiol       Date:  2020-01-22       Impact factor: 1.610

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.