Maxim Mokin1, Travis M Dumont1, Joan Mihyun Chi1, Connor J Mangan1, Tareq Kass-Hout2, Grant C Sorkin1, Kenneth V Snyder3, L Nelson Hopkins4, Adnan H Siddiqui4, Elad I Levy5. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Gates Vascular Institute, Kaleida Health, Buffalo, New York, USA. 2. Department of Neurology, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA; Department of Neurology, Gates Vascular Institute, Kaleida Health, Buffalo, New York, USA. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA; Department of Neurology, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA; Department of Radiology, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA; Toshiba Stroke and Vascular Research Center, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Gates Vascular Institute, Kaleida Health, Buffalo, New York, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA; Department of Radiology, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA; Toshiba Stroke and Vascular Research Center, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Gates Vascular Institute, Kaleida Health, Buffalo, New York, USA; Jacobs Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA; Department of Radiology, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA; Toshiba Stroke and Vascular Research Center, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Gates Vascular Institute, Kaleida Health, Buffalo, New York, USA. Electronic address: elevy@ubns.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cerebral protection device utilization during carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been shown to decrease risk of perioperative stroke. The two most commonly used devices are distal filters and proximal protection devices, which allow blood flow cessation or flow reversal. The goal of the present study was to examine anatomic and morphologic characteristics of the treated lesions using each type of cerebral protection device and compare clinical 30-day adverse event rates between the two cerebral protection groups. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective review of consecutive CAS cases with proximal protection devices that were matched with CAS cases using distal filter protection devices based on indication (symptomatic vs. asymptomatic), age, and gender. We reviewed clinical, anatomic, and morphologic characteristics of the stented lesions in cases of proximal or distal protection and also studied the rate of major adverse events within the first 30 days after the procedure. RESULTS: We identified a total of 70 patients treated with proximal protection devices who were matched in a blinded fashion to 70 cases with distal protection. There was a significantly higher number of high-risk lesions in patients who had CAS using proximal protection devices (P = 0.009). There was no significant difference in overall frequency of 30-day adverse outcomes (transient ischemic attack/stroke/reperfusion hemorrhage/death) between the two groups (P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first attempt (to our knowledge) to review and compare anatomic and morphologic characteristics of the stented lesions in cases of proximal versus distal protection for CAS. Our data indicate that in properly selected patients both approaches could be equally safe and effective.
OBJECTIVE: Cerebral protection device utilization during carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been shown to decrease risk of perioperative stroke. The two most commonly used devices are distal filters and proximal protection devices, which allow blood flow cessation or flow reversal. The goal of the present study was to examine anatomic and morphologic characteristics of the treated lesions using each type of cerebral protection device and compare clinical 30-day adverse event rates between the two cerebral protection groups. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective review of consecutive CAS cases with proximal protection devices that were matched with CAS cases using distal filter protection devices based on indication (symptomatic vs. asymptomatic), age, and gender. We reviewed clinical, anatomic, and morphologic characteristics of the stented lesions in cases of proximal or distal protection and also studied the rate of major adverse events within the first 30 days after the procedure. RESULTS: We identified a total of 70 patients treated with proximal protection devices who were matched in a blinded fashion to 70 cases with distal protection. There was a significantly higher number of high-risk lesions in patients who had CAS using proximal protection devices (P = 0.009). There was no significant difference in overall frequency of 30-day adverse outcomes (transient ischemic attack/stroke/reperfusion hemorrhage/death) between the two groups (P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first attempt (to our knowledge) to review and compare anatomic and morphologic characteristics of the stented lesions in cases of proximal versus distal protection for CAS. Our data indicate that in properly selected patients both approaches could be equally safe and effective.
Authors: Leo H Bonati; Stavros Kakkos; Joachim Berkefeld; Gert J de Borst; Richard Bulbulia; Alison Halliday; Isabelle van Herzeele; Igor Koncar; Dominick Jh McCabe; Avtar Lal; Jean-Baptiste Ricco; Peter Ringleb; Martin Taylor-Rowan; Hans-Henning Eckstein Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2021-05-11
Authors: Mandy D Müller; Stefanie von Felten; Ale Algra; Jean-Pierre Becquemin; Richard Bulbulia; David Calvet; Hans-Henning Eckstein; Gustav Fraedrich; Alison Halliday; Jeroen Hendrikse; George Howard; John Gregson; Olav Jansen; Martin M Brown; Jean-Louis Mas; Thomas G Brott; Peter A Ringleb; Leo H Bonati Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Mandy D Müller; Stefanie von Felten; Ale Algra; Jean-Pierre Becquemin; Martin Brown; Richard Bulbulia; David Calvet; Hans-Henning Eckstein; Gustav Fraedrich; Alison Halliday; Jeroen Hendrikse; John Gregson; George Howard; Olav Jansen; Jean-Louis Mas; Thomas G Brott; Peter A Ringleb; Leo H Bonati Journal: Stroke Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 7.914