Lindsey A Olivere1, James Ronald2, Zachary Williams3, Mitchell W Cox3, Chandler Long3, Cynthia K Shortell3, Kevin W Southerland4. 1. Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. 2. Department of Interventional Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 3. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 4. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Electronic address: kevin.southerland@duke.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a hybrid technique for carotid artery revascularization that relies on proximal carotid occlusion with flow reversal for distal embolic protection. The hemodynamic response of the intracranial circulation to flow reversal is unknown. In addition, the rate and pattern of cerebral embolization during flow reversal has yet to be investigated. The aim of this study was to characterize cerebral hemodynamic and embolization patterns during TCAR. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective study of patients with carotid artery stenosis undergoing TCAR with intraoperative transcranial Doppler (TCD) monitoring of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) was performed. Primary outcomes included changes in MCA velocity and MCA embolic signals observed throughout TCAR. RESULTS: Eleven patients underwent TCAR with TCD monitoring of the ipsilateral MCA. The average MCA velocity at baseline was 50.6 ± 16.4 cm/s. MCA flow decreased significantly upon initiation of flow reversal (50.5 ± 16.4 cm/s vs 19.1 ± 18.4 cm/s; P = .02). The reinitiation of antegrade flow resulted in a significant increase in the number of embolic events compared with baseline (P = .003), and embolic events were observed in two patients during flow reversal. CONCLUSIONS: TCD monitoring of patients undergoing TCAR revealed that the initiation of flow reversal results in a decrement in ipsilateral MCA velocity. Furthermore, embolic events can occur during flow reversal and are significantly associated with the reinitiation of antegrade flow in the internal carotid artery. However, both of these hemodynamic events were well-tolerated in our cohort. These findings suggest that TCAR remains a safe neuroprotective strategy for carotid revascularization.
OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a hybrid technique for carotid artery revascularization that relies on proximal carotid occlusion with flow reversal for distal embolic protection. The hemodynamic response of the intracranial circulation to flow reversal is unknown. In addition, the rate and pattern of cerebral embolization during flow reversal has yet to be investigated. The aim of this study was to characterize cerebral hemodynamic and embolization patterns during TCAR. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective study of patients with carotid artery stenosis undergoing TCAR with intraoperative transcranial Doppler (TCD) monitoring of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) was performed. Primary outcomes included changes in MCA velocity and MCA embolic signals observed throughout TCAR. RESULTS: Eleven patients underwent TCAR with TCD monitoring of the ipsilateral MCA. The average MCA velocity at baseline was 50.6 ± 16.4 cm/s. MCA flow decreased significantly upon initiation of flow reversal (50.5 ± 16.4 cm/s vs 19.1 ± 18.4 cm/s; P = .02). The reinitiation of antegrade flow resulted in a significant increase in the number of embolic events compared with baseline (P = .003), and embolic events were observed in two patients during flow reversal. CONCLUSIONS: TCD monitoring of patients undergoing TCAR revealed that the initiation of flow reversal results in a decrement in ipsilateral MCA velocity. Furthermore, embolic events can occur during flow reversal and are significantly associated with the reinitiation of antegrade flow in the internal carotid artery. However, both of these hemodynamic events were well-tolerated in our cohort. These findings suggest that TCAR remains a safe neuroprotective strategy for carotid revascularization.
Authors: T Ohki; J Parodi; F J Veith; M Bates; M Bade; D Chang; M Mehta; J Rabin; K Goldstein; J Harvey; E Lipsitz Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Leo H Bonati; Lisa M Jongen; Sven Haller; H Zwenneke Flach; Joanna Dobson; Paul J Nederkoorn; Sumaira Macdonald; Peter A Gaines; Annet Waaijer; Annet Waajier; Peter Stierli; H Rolf Jäger; Philippe A Lyrer; L Jaap Kappelle; Stephan G Wetzel; Aad van der Lugt; Willem P Mali; Martin M Brown; H Bart van der Worp; Stefan T Engelter Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-02-25 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Reshmi Udesh; Piruthiviraj Natarajan; Karthy Thiagarajan; Lawrence R Wechsler; Donald J Crammond; Jeffrey R Balzer; Parthasarathy D Thirumala Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 2.153