Endovascular Cerebral Protection and Revascularization of Innominate Artery Stenosis Through Single-Site Access, with Device Entrapment and Rescue: Technical Case Report

Combined Angioplasty Technique of the Carotid Territory and Supra-Aortic Trunk by Double Access (Cervical and Limbs) for Tandem Lesions

BACKGROUND

The carotid stent angioplasty (CAS) has been the main option for patients with high cardiovascular risk and carotid stenosis. The common femoral artery is still the most used access site; however, the aortic arch manipulation is a critical moment for cerebral embolization. Carotid transcervical access should be considered as a good alternative access route for CAS. Tandem lesions combining supra-aortic trunks and ipsilateral carotid bulb critical stenosis pose a great challenge for the vascular surgeon.

METHODS

This is a retrospective descriptive study based on medical records of our institution. We report 2 cases of complex cerebral vascular insufficiency and discuss therapeutic options and strategies to protect the cerebrovascular territory avoiding microembolization, as well as demonstrate an alternative and safe total endovascular approach for those cases.

RESULTS

We describe the approach of 2 complex cerebral vascular insufficiency cases: case 1, a 63-year-old male with previous ischemic stroke, right internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion, left ICA stenosis >70%, and critical stenosis of the origin of common carotid artery (CCA); case 2, a 68-year-old female with previous ischemic stroke, left ICA occlusion, brachiocephalic trunk critical stenosis, hypoplastic right vertebral artery, and aortobi-iliac chronic occlusion. In both cases reported here a challenging solution was chosen, little described in the literature, with cerebral filter protection as the first step. In addition, a literature review was performed to discuss the different approach options for tandem injuries of the supra-aortic trunk and carotid bulb.

CONCLUSIONS

Our initial experience with total endovascular treatment of complex tandem lesions of the carotid territory and supra-aortic trunks show that transcervical access, coupled with distal protection filter device on the first step, is a safe and effective technique for preventing neurological events.

Use of a Dual-Filter Cerebral Embolic Protection Device in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

The risk of periprocedural stroke after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) ranges from 3% to 8%. Although cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD) are widely utilized in transcatheter aortic valve replacement, there are currently no Food and Drug Administration approved CEPDs for use in TEVAR. We report our initial experience with the off-label use of a dual-filter CEPD in patients undergoing TEVAR.

METHODS

Two patients at high risk for embolic stroke underwent TEVAR for descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (DTAAs) at a single institution. A dual-filter CEPD (Sentinel; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) was used in an off-label fashion in both cases. Patient 1 was a 62-year-old woman with a 6.2-cm DTAA, extending from the left subclavian artery (LSCA) to the diaphragm (Zones 3-5) and associated with extensive atherosclerotic disease of the aortic arch. Patient 2 was a 78-year-old woman with a 6.3-cm DTAA, extending from the LSCA (Zone 2) to the sixth intercostal space (Zone 4) with associated mural thrombus. Given the proximity of the aneurysm to the LSCA, a left carotid-subclavian bypass was performed for planned LSCA coverage.

RESULTS

Through a percutaneous right radial artery approach using a 6F sheath, the Sentinel dual-filter CEPD was delivered over a 0.014″ guidewire into the thoracic aorta. Under fluoroscopic guidance, the 2 filters were sequentially deployed in the innominate and left common carotid arteries, respectively. Appropriately sized devices were successfully delivered and deployed in the proximal and distal landing zones, respectively. Two devices were used for each patient. Completion angiograms showed successful exclusion of the DTAAs in both cases, without evidence of endoleak. The CEPD filters were retrieved in standard fashion without difficulty. Pathology demonstrated successful capture of embolic debris and fibrin clot in both patients. Neither patient exhibited neurological deficits or device-related complications. Both patients remained neurologically intact at 1- and 2-month follow-up, respectively. Surveillance angiograms revealed successful exclusion of the aneurysm without any evidence of endoleak.

CONCLUSIONS

We report the novel off-label use of a dual-filter CEPD in 2 patients undergoing TEVAR. Pathological confirmation of embolic debris in the filters makes this a potential tool for stroke prevention during TEVAR in high-risk patients.