Masahito Nakazaki1, Tadashi Nonaka2,3, Akira Takahashi3, Yasuyuki Yonemasu3, Tatsufumi Nomura2,3, Toshiyuki Onda2,3, Osamu Honda3, Yuji Hashimoto3, Hirofumi Ohnishi4, Masanori Sasaki5, Masahiko Daibo3, Osamu Honmou5. 1. Department of Neural Regenerative Medicine, Research Institute for Frontier Medicine, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8556, Japan. nakazaki@sapmed.ac.jp. 2. Department of Neuroendovascular Therapy, Sapporo Shiroishi Memorial Hospital, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 003-0026, Japan. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Sapporo Shiroishi Memorial Hospital, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 003-0026, Japan. 4. Department of Public Health, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8556, Japan. 5. Department of Neural Regenerative Medicine, Research Institute for Frontier Medicine, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8556, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of distal filter protection alone is associated with a high risk of ischemic complications when vulnerable carotid stenosis is treated by carotid artery stenting (CAS). Double balloon protection, a combination of distal balloon protection and proximal balloon occlusion, can be utilized. We assessed the outcome and complications of the double balloon protection method for vulnerable carotid stenosis. METHODS: Among 130 patients who underwent CAS from 2009 to 2014, we enrolled the following patients: those whose target lesion was vulnerable as evaluated by MRI, i.e., a signal ratio of plaque to posterior cervical muscle on T1-weighted images before CAS of ≥1.5, and those who underwent diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) studies within 48 h after the procedure. Ninety patients were enrolled. We investigated DWI findings of the double balloon protection group compared with those of the simple distal balloon protection and distal filter protection groups. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (71 %) underwent double balloon protection, 15 patients (17 %) simple distal balloon protection, and 11 patients (12 %) distal filter protection. Symptomatic embolic complications and new lesions on DWI after CAS were significantly less common in patients undergoing double balloon protection compared to distal balloon protection or distal filter protection (0 % vs. 20 %, 9 %, P < 0.01, and 30 % vs. 67 %, 82 %, P < 0.01, respectively). Logistic regression analysis also identified the odds ratio of double balloon protection for new lesions on DWI after CAS of 0.23 (95 % confidence interval: 0.07-0.70, P < 0.01) compared to simple distal protections. CONCLUSIONS: In the patients who underwent CAS for vulnerable carotid stenosis, double balloon protection was an independent significant factor associated with a reduction in the risk of new lesions on DWI after the procedure compared to conventional distal protections.
BACKGROUND: The use of distal filter protection alone is associated with a high risk of ischemic complications when vulnerable carotid stenosis is treated by carotid artery stenting (CAS). Double balloon protection, a combination of distal balloon protection and proximal balloon occlusion, can be utilized. We assessed the outcome and complications of the double balloon protection method for vulnerable carotid stenosis. METHODS: Among 130 patients who underwent CAS from 2009 to 2014, we enrolled the following patients: those whose target lesion was vulnerable as evaluated by MRI, i.e., a signal ratio of plaque to posterior cervical muscle on T1-weighted images before CAS of ≥1.5, and those who underwent diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) studies within 48 h after the procedure. Ninety patients were enrolled. We investigated DWI findings of the double balloon protection group compared with those of the simple distal balloon protection and distal filter protection groups. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (71 %) underwent double balloon protection, 15 patients (17 %) simple distal balloon protection, and 11 patients (12 %) distal filter protection. Symptomatic embolic complications and new lesions on DWI after CAS were significantly less common in patients undergoing double balloon protection compared to distal balloon protection or distal filter protection (0 % vs. 20 %, 9 %, P < 0.01, and 30 % vs. 67 %, 82 %, P < 0.01, respectively). Logistic regression analysis also identified the odds ratio of double balloon protection for new lesions on DWI after CAS of 0.23 (95 % confidence interval: 0.07-0.70, P < 0.01) compared to simple distal protections. CONCLUSIONS: In the patients who underwent CAS for vulnerable carotid stenosis, double balloon protection was an independent significant factor associated with a reduction in the risk of new lesions on DWI after the procedure compared to conventional distal protections.