BACKGROUND: Previous trials comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy have shown that the former can increase the stroke rate. However, in the last years, because of the improvements either of the technique or the improvement of the stents and embolic protection devices (EPD), CAS has become a very competitive procedure. In this study, we tried to assess the feasibility and the safety of using double EPD (proximal and distal) in high-risk patients. METHODS: We collected data about all consecutive patients with carotid artery stenosis who underwent CAS and compared clinical and procedural characteristics as well as immediate and 30-day outcomes between the use of double vs. single EPD. RESULTS: Between November 2007 and August 2014, 294 patients underwent CAS. In 35 of them (11.9%) double EPD was used. In comparison with the patients treated with single EPD, those with double EPD presented more with acute carotid syndrome (recurrent TIAs < 48 hr, minor stroke < 14 days) and with complex plaque (79.4 vs. 33.6%, P < 0.0001). There was no difference between the 2 groups in primary success (100 vs. 99.6%, P = 0.16) and in 30-days major complications: death (0 vs. 0.8%, P = 0.6), major stroke (0 vs. 0.8%, P = 0.42), and minor stroke (0 vs 1.1%, P = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, in high-risk patients with high-risk lesions, the use of double EPD (proximal and distal) is safe and effective in minimizing the risk of cerebral embolization, but, to validate such a technique in wide range of patients, further studies are warranted.
BACKGROUND: Previous trials comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy have shown that the former can increase the stroke rate. However, in the last years, because of the improvements either of the technique or the improvement of the stents and embolic protection devices (EPD), CAS has become a very competitive procedure. In this study, we tried to assess the feasibility and the safety of using double EPD (proximal and distal) in high-risk patients. METHODS: We collected data about all consecutive patients with carotid artery stenosis who underwent CAS and compared clinical and procedural characteristics as well as immediate and 30-day outcomes between the use of double vs. single EPD. RESULTS: Between November 2007 and August 2014, 294 patients underwent CAS. In 35 of them (11.9%) double EPD was used. In comparison with the patients treated with single EPD, those with double EPD presented more with acute carotid syndrome (recurrent TIAs < 48 hr, minor stroke < 14 days) and with complex plaque (79.4 vs. 33.6%, P < 0.0001). There was no difference between the 2 groups in primary success (100 vs. 99.6%, P = 0.16) and in 30-days major complications: death (0 vs. 0.8%, P = 0.6), major stroke (0 vs. 0.8%, P = 0.42), and minor stroke (0 vs 1.1%, P = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, in high-risk patients with high-risk lesions, the use of double EPD (proximal and distal) is safe and effective in minimizing the risk of cerebral embolization, but, to validate such a technique in wide range of patients, further studies are warranted.