Maarten Plessers1, Isabelle Van Herzeele2, Dimitri Hemelsoet3, Nikil Patel4, Emma M L Chung4, Guy Vingerhoets5, Frank Vermassen2. 1. Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Department of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium maarten.plessers@ugent.be. 2. Department of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 3. Department of Neurology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 4. Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, UK. 5. Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate a series of patients treated electively with carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting with distal filter protection (CASdp), and transcervical carotid stenting with dynamic flow reversal (CASfr) monitored continuously with transcranial Doppler (TCD) during the procedure to detect intraoperative embolization rates. METHODS: Thirty-four patients (mean age 67.6 years; 24 men) with significant carotid stenosis underwent successful TCD monitoring during the revascularization procedure (10 CEA, 8 CASdp, and 16 CASfr). Ipsilateral microembolic signals were segregated into 3 phases: preprotection (until internal carotid artery cross-shunted or clamped if no shunt was used, filter deployed, or flow reversal established), protection (until clamp/shunt was removed, filter retrieved, or antegrade flow reestablished), and postprotection (after clamp/shunt or filter removal or restoration of normal flow). RESULTS: CASdp showed higher embolization rates than CEA or CASfr in the preprotection phase (p<0.001). In the protection phase, CASdp was again associated with more embolization compared with CEA and CASfr (p<0.001). In the postprotection phase, no differences between the revascularization therapies were observed. CASfr and CEA did not show significant differences in intraoperative embolization during any of the phases. CONCLUSION: TCD recordings demonstrated a significant reduction in embolization to the brain during transcervical carotid artery stent placement with the use of dynamic flow reversal compared to transfemoral CAS using distal filters. No significant differences in microembolization could be detected between CEA and CASfr. The observed lower embolization rates and lack of adverse events suggest that transcervical CAS with dynamic flow reversal is a promising technique and may be the preferred method when performing CAS.
PURPOSE: To evaluate a series of patients treated electively with carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting with distal filter protection (CASdp), and transcervical carotid stenting with dynamic flow reversal (CASfr) monitored continuously with transcranial Doppler (TCD) during the procedure to detect intraoperative embolization rates. METHODS: Thirty-four patients (mean age 67.6 years; 24 men) with significant carotid stenosis underwent successful TCD monitoring during the revascularization procedure (10 CEA, 8 CASdp, and 16 CASfr). Ipsilateral microembolic signals were segregated into 3 phases: preprotection (until internal carotid artery cross-shunted or clamped if no shunt was used, filter deployed, or flow reversal established), protection (until clamp/shunt was removed, filter retrieved, or antegrade flow reestablished), and postprotection (after clamp/shunt or filter removal or restoration of normal flow). RESULTS: CASdp showed higher embolization rates than CEA or CASfr in the preprotection phase (p<0.001). In the protection phase, CASdp was again associated with more embolization compared with CEA and CASfr (p<0.001). In the postprotection phase, no differences between the revascularization therapies were observed. CASfr and CEA did not show significant differences in intraoperative embolization during any of the phases. CONCLUSION: TCD recordings demonstrated a significant reduction in embolization to the brain during transcervical carotid artery stent placement with the use of dynamic flow reversal compared to transfemoral CAS using distal filters. No significant differences in microembolization could be detected between CEA and CASfr. The observed lower embolization rates and lack of adverse events suggest that transcervical CAS with dynamic flow reversal is a promising technique and may be the preferred method when performing CAS.
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: Christina L Cui; Hanaa Dakour-Aridi; Jens Eldrup-Jorgensen; Marc L Schermerhorn; Jeffrey J Siracuse; Mahmoud B Malas Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Xuesong Bai; Xiao Zhang; Wuyang Yang; Tao Wang; Yan Wang; Yao Feng; Kun Yang; Xue Wang; Yan Ma; Liqun Jiao Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Zachary K Christian; Alex N Hoang; Huy Dang; Abdul B Khan; Daniel M S Raper; Zachary S Pallister; Omar Tanweer Journal: J Neurosurg Case Lessons Date: 2022-03-07