PURPOSE: Since we reported about a landmark technique to reopen an occluded subclavian artery, we have faced difficulty in using protection devices in the vertebral artery to protect against thromboembolism from the reversed steal phenomenon after angioplasty and stenting. Therefore, we are presenting an optimal solution in using a protection device while recanalizing the occluded subclavian artery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 21 cases of stenting for subclavian artery steno-occlusion, we applied the landmark technique at the opposite end of an occluded segment in 4 patients and used a protection device in two patients. Because the embolic protection device was placed in the vertebral artery via the brachial artery, optimal angioplasty and stenting via the brachial route were limited. Therefore, angioplasty via the trans-brachial approach was needed to be followed by stenting through a trans-femoral approach. We estimated the safe and optimal steps for placement and retrieval of the protection devices in addition to stenting. RESULTS: The procedure was safely performed when a stent was introduced via the femoral artery and a protection device was used via the brachial artery. However, in cases when a guidewire wasn't passed via the transfemoral route, simultaneous use of two systems via the brachial route could cause friction of devices or trapping of protection devices in a stent. When a protection device was trapped in a deployed stent, we retrieved the protection device with a 4F angiocatheter by selectively rotating the catheter tip. To avoid such procedural difficulty, we recommend using a transbrachial angioplasty followed by trans-femoral stenting while placing the protection device in the vertebral artery via the trans-brachial route. CONCLUSION: If a guidewire is not passed through using a trans-femoral approach while performing the landmark technique, changing the stenting route from brachial to the femoral artery can be useful after securing the lumen in the occluded subclavian artery after angioplasty via the brachial artery.
PURPOSE: Since we reported about a landmark technique to reopen an occluded subclavian artery, we have faced difficulty in using protection devices in the vertebral artery to protect against thromboembolism from the reversed steal phenomenon after angioplasty and stenting. Therefore, we are presenting an optimal solution in using a protection device while recanalizing the occluded subclavian artery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 21 cases of stenting for subclavian artery steno-occlusion, we applied the landmark technique at the opposite end of an occluded segment in 4 patients and used a protection device in two patients. Because the embolic protection device was placed in the vertebral artery via the brachial artery, optimal angioplasty and stenting via the brachial route were limited. Therefore, angioplasty via the trans-brachial approach was needed to be followed by stenting through a trans-femoral approach. We estimated the safe and optimal steps for placement and retrieval of the protection devices in addition to stenting. RESULTS: The procedure was safely performed when a stent was introduced via the femoral artery and a protection device was used via the brachial artery. However, in cases when a guidewire wasn't passed via the transfemoral route, simultaneous use of two systems via the brachial route could cause friction of devices or trapping of protection devices in a stent. When a protection device was trapped in a deployed stent, we retrieved the protection device with a 4F angiocatheter by selectively rotating the catheter tip. To avoid such procedural difficulty, we recommend using a transbrachial angioplasty followed by trans-femoral stenting while placing the protection device in the vertebral artery via the trans-brachial route. CONCLUSION: If a guidewire is not passed through using a trans-femoral approach while performing the landmark technique, changing the stenting route from brachial to the femoral artery can be useful after securing the lumen in the occluded subclavian artery after angioplasty via the brachial artery.
Authors: B S Choi; J W Park; J E Shin; P-H Lü; J K Kim; S J Kim; D H Lee; J S Kim; H J Kim; D C Suh Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2010-10-25 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: H W Pyun; D C Suh; J K Kim; J S Kim; Y J Choi; M-H Kim; H R Yang; Y M Jang; M-S Ko; E Y Cha; D H Yang; S J Kim Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-10-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: D C Suh; J K Kim; C G Choi; S J Kim; H W Pyun; C Ahn; D H Yang; K S Lim; J-G Leem; K D Hahm; J-H Lee; S U Kwon; J S Kim Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825