Proximal balloon-guided catheter with flow inversion vs. distal filter protection during the carotid stent placement, a seven years experience in a Colombian reference center

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The carotid stent placement as a therapeutic option for carotid stenosis has been increasing among years; therefore, studies are required to evaluate the security and efficacy of its materials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the distal filter and the proximal balloon-guided catheter with flow inversion as protection devices during carotid angioplasty and stenting.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational study of patients diagnosed with carotid stenosis treated with angioplasty between January 1, 2014, and June 30, 2020; we analyzed a radiology service database to compare the distal filter and the proximal balloon-guided catheter as protection devices during angioplasty.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-five angioplasties were performed, the distal filter was the most prevalent embolic protection device used (66%), patients baseline characteristics did not differ between groups with different embolic protection devices, except for history of dyslipidemia (p < 0.000). As well, we did not find any significant differences between the groups in the device related complications, intervention time (p = 0.140), unrelated complications (p = 0.693) and functional independence at 90 days (p = 0.096).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study the proximal balloon-guided catheter and the distal filter protection device as protection devices during the carotid stenting didn't show significant differences regarding complications related to the system.

Distal embolic protection use during transfemoral carotid artery stenting is associated with improved in-hospital outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Despite current guidelines recommending the use of distal embolic protection during transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) to prevent periprocedural stroke, there remains significant variation in the routine use of distal filters. We sought to assess in-hospital outcomes in patients undergoing tfCAS with and without embolic protection using a distal filter.

METHODS

We identified all patients undergoing tfCAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative from March 2005 to December 2021 and excluded those who received proximal embolic balloon protection. We created propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who underwent tfCAS with and without attempted placement of a distal filter. Subgroup analyses of patients with failed vs successful filter placement and failed vs no attempt at filter placement were performed. In-hospital outcomes were assessed using log binomial regression, adjusted for protamine use. Outcomes of interest were composite stroke/death, stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), transient ischemic attack (TIA), and hyperperfusion syndrome.

RESULTS

Among 29,853 patients who underwent tfCAS, 28,213 (95%) had a filter attempted for distal embolic protection and 1640 (5%) did not. After matching, 6859 patients were identified. No attempted filter was associated with significantly higher risk of in-hospital stroke/death (6.4% vs 3.8%; adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-2.23; P < .001), stroke (3.7% vs 2.5%; aRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.06-2.08; P = .022), and mortality (3.5% vs 1.7%; aRR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.42-3.020; P < .001). In a secondary analysis of patients who had failed attempt at filter placement vs successful filter placement, failed filter placement was associated with worse outcomes (stroke/death: 5.8% vs 2.7%; aRR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.38-3.21; P = .001 and stroke: 5.3% vs 1.8%; aRR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.78-4.61; P < .001). However, there were no differences in outcomes in patients with failed vs no attempted filter placement (stroke/death: 5.4% vs 6.2%; aRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.61-1.63; P = .99; stroke: 4.7% vs 3.7%; aRR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.79-2.48; P = .20; death: 0.9% vs 3.4%; aRR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.12-1.01; P = .052).

CONCLUSIONS

tfCAS performed without attempted distal embolic protection was associated with a significantly higher risk of in-hospital stroke and death. Patients undergoing tfCAS after failed attempt at filter placement have equivalent stroke/death to patients in whom no filter was attempted, but more than a two-fold higher risk of stroke/death compared with those with successfully placed filters. These findings support current Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines recommending routine use of distal embolic protection during tfCAS. If a filter cannot be placed safely, an alternative approach to carotid revascularization should be considered.

Carotid Artery Stenting Without Embolic Protection Device: A Single-Center Experience

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of carotid artery stenting (CAS) performed without an embolic protection device (EPD) in a selected group of asymptomatic patients with primary internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis or restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between May 2015 and May 2018, 77 patients (mean age 77 years; 60 men) underwent CAS without any embolic protection device. Forty-seven (61%) patients had primary ICA stenosis and were excluded from CEA because of high surgical risk; the other 30 (39%) patients had post-CEA restenosis (n=26) or a distal ICA flap after eversion CEA (n=4). The mean ICA stenosis was 82%. All procedures were performed from a femoral artery access. Pre- and/or postdilation were used in 64 patients. The primary outcome was the incidence of major complications (death, stroke, or myocardial infarction) during the procedure and within 30 days; the secondary outcome was the incidence of restenosis in follow-up.

RESULTS

No relevant bradycardia was encountered during CAS. The combined rate of stroke, death, or myocardial infarction at 30 days was 1.3%. The single stroke patient recovered fully after 2 months. Over a follow-up that ranged to 3 years (mean 24±18 months), no further neurological events were recorded. One (1.3%) patient had a >70% restenosis after 6 months; the lesion was dilated, successfully restoring the lumen contour.

CONCLUSION

In our series, endovascular treatment of carotid stenosis without the use of protection devices in patients with primary stenosis or postsurgical restenosis can achieve satisfactory safety and efficacy outcomes. The choice of performing CAS without using EPDs should follow a tailored approach based on the appropriate patient anatomy and specific clinical parameters to minimize neurological complications.

Protected versus Unprotected Carotid Artery Stenting : Meta-Analysis of the Current Literature

Objective

To compare peri-operative any symptomatic stroke after carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), based on the application or absence of a cerebral protection device.

Methods

A systematic literature review using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central was done across an online data base from January 1995 to October 2016. Procedures which were performed due to carotid dissection or aneurysm, procedures using covered stents or conducted in an emergency, were excluded. The primary endpoint was perioperative any symptomatic stroke within 30 days after the procedure. A fixed effect model was used in cases of heterogeneity less than 50%.

Results

In the 25 articles included in this study, the number of stroke events was 326 (2.0%) in protected CAS and 142 (3.4%) in unprotected CAS. The use of cerebral protection device significantly decreased stroke after CAS (odds ratio [OR] 0.633, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.479–0.837, p=0.001). In the publication bias analysis, Egger’s regression test disclosed that the intercept was -0.317 (95% CI -1.015–0.382, p=0.358). Regarding symptomatic patients (four studies, 539 CAS procedures), the number of stroke was six (1.7%) in protected CAS and 11 (5.7%) in unprotected CAS. The protective effect against stroke events by cerebral protection device did not have a statistical significance (OR 0.455, 95% CI 0.151–1.366, p=0.160).

Conclusion

The use of protection device significantly decreased stroke after CAS. However, its efficacy was not demonstrated in symptomatic patients. Routine use of protection device during CAS should be critically assessed before mandatory use.

Proximal Embolic Protection Devices in Complicated Carotid Artery Stenting

The most frequent complication during carotid artery stenting (CAS) is intraoperative distal embolization. Three categories of embolic protection devices (EPDs) are routinely used through a transfemoral or transcervical approach: distal occlusion devices, distal EPDs with flow preservation using filters, and the proximal occlusive protective systems. We report the case of the internal carotid artery (ICA) plaque rupture during CAS using a proximal EPD (the Mo.Ma system; INVATEC), treated with immediate surgery. The proximal occlusive protective system permitted the common carotid artery and ICA endoclamping for the time necessary to prepare the patient for the carotid endarterectomy. The EPDs should always be chosen considering the patient's and lesion's characteristics. This knowledge allows their use even as "bridge" endovascular devices.

The Role of Embolic Protection in Carotid Stenting Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases (PCVD)

Embolic protection device (EPD) use has become ubiquitous and is currently mandated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) for reimbursement in conjunction with carotid artery stenting (CAS). There are two classes of EPD devices: distal filter EPD (f-EPD) and proximal EPD (p-EPD). Measuring the incremental benefit of one strategy over the other remains problematic for several reasons. The first lies in the difficulty of defining an embolic event as transcranial Doppler and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities may not correlate with clinical events. Next, f-EPD is used more frequently than p-EPD making direct comparisons challenging, as analyses to this point have been underpowered. However, there are several promising emerging techniques and technologies that warrant further investigation.

Proximal versus distal embolic protection for carotid artery stenting: a national cardiovascular data registry analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the stroke/death rates between proximal embolic protection devices (P-EPDs) and distal filter embolic protection devices (F-EPDs) in elective carotid artery stenting (CAS).

BACKGROUND

P-EPDs have theoretical advantages that may make them superior to F-EPDs for stroke prevention during CAS.

METHODS

We examined 10,246 consecutive elective CAS procedures performed with embolic protection in the NCDR CARE registry between January 2009 and March 2013. We analyzed crude and propensity-matched rates of in-hospital combined death/stroke in patients treated with P-EPDs versus F-EPDs. Secondary analyses included 30-day adverse event rates and stroke rates by the involved cerebrovascular territory.

RESULTS

P-EPDs were used in 590 of 10,246 cases (5.8%). Patients treated with P-EPDs had higher rates of symptomatic lesion status (46.8% vs. 39.7%, p<0.001), atrial fibrillation/flutter (16.1% vs. 13.0%, p=0.03), and history of a neurological event (51.2% vs. 46.6%, p=0.03). In unadjusted and propensity-matched analyses, differences in in-hospital stroke/death between P-EPD and F-EPD cohorts were nonsignificant (1.5% vs. 2.4%, p=0.16 and 1.6% vs. 2.0%, p=0.56, respectively). For patients with available data (n=7,693, 75.1%), 30-day adverse events rates were similar for P-EPDs and F-EPDs before (2.5% vs. 4.2%, p=0.07) and after (2.7% vs. 4.0%, p=0.22) propensity matching.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a P-EPD during CAS was associated with low rates of in-hospital stroke/death similar to those with an F-EPD in the first comparative effectiveness study of the devices. An adequately powered randomized trial comparing clinical outcomes between these devices is unlikely to be feasible.

Lesion-Related Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting with Closed-Cell Design without Embolic Protection Devices in High-Risk Elderly Patients-Can This Concept Work Out? A Single Center Experience Focusing on Stent Design

To compare the performance differences of three carotid artery stents in high-risk elderly patients without embolic protection devices (EPDs) on the basis of stent design, procedure-related complications, conveniences in handling, in-stent restenosis, 30-day outcome, and long-term follow-up. A total of 101 symptomatic internal carotid stenoses of 94 patients were prospectively treated with stent-protected angioplasty to 94 patients. Three closed-cell stents, one of those being hybrid cell design, were chosen depending on vascular anatomy: curved vessel, lesion length > 1 cm: 64 Carotid Wallstent (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA); curved vessel, lesion length < 1 cm: 21 Cristallo Ideale (Invatec, Roncadelle, Italy); straight vessel, lesion length > 1 cm: 16 Xact (Vascular Abbott, Santa Clara, CA). Comparisons of demographics, procedures, and outcomes were performed. The mean age of patients was 73.1 years (standard deviation [SD], ± 7.9; range, 58-87 years), 71% of the patients were older than 70 years and 20% were octogenarians. Male/female ratio was 3.1:1. About 13.9% (14/101) had contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion. Overall peri-interventional complication rate was 2.9% and 30-day mortality rate was 1%. During the long-term follow-up (34 months, range 1-59) no ipsilateral stroke was documented. Ten deaths (three after MI) were recognized. Two in-stent restenosis were detected (> 70% North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial) during follow-up, one patient was detected with previous carotid endarterectomy. Especially, if individual anatomical variance is considered, lesion-related stent-protected carotid angioplasty with lesion-adapted closed-cell design is an effective, reliable, safe, and comprehensible treatment option in symptomatic patients. Even without EPDs, the rate of complications is low, when compared with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis described in the literature. In-stent restenosis seems to play no significant role in follow-up.