Operator’s Experience Is the Most Efficient Embolic Protection Device for Carotid Artery Stenting

[Stenting of the extracranial internal carotid artery]

The treatment of patients with stenosis of the internal carotid artery (ICA) is based on established guidelines, which includes both surgical and endovascular treatment options; however, the most recent advances, including the emergence of new endovascular treatment methods and techniques, combined with more recent clinical results, throw a new light on the optimal selection and treatment of patients in the current practice. This article deals with the most recent advances in the field of stenting of the extracranial internal carotid artery.

Carotid artery interventions - endarterectomy versus stenting

Current management of patients with carotid artery stenosis is based on well-established guidelines, including surgical procedures - carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and endovascular carotid artery stenting (CAS) - and optimal medical treatment alone. Outcomes in the postprocedural period after CAS and CEA are similar, suggesting strong clinical durability for both treatments. Recent advances, which include the emergence of novel endovascular treatment tools and techniques, combined with more recent randomised trial data shed new light on optimal patient selection and treatment in contemporary practice. Improved, modern technologies including enhanced embolic protection devices and dual-layered micromesh stents yield better outcomes and should result in further improvements in CAS. In centres of excellence, nowadays, the majority of patients with severe carotid artery stenosis can be successfully treated with either CEA or CAS.

WIRION™ embolic protection system for carotid artery stenting and lower extremity endovascular intervention

Aim: To summarize all available literature regarding the Wirion™ embolic protection system (EPS) and present examples from our center. Materials & methods: A review of literture was performed about the utilization of Wirion EPS. Results: One study was identified investigating the outcomes of Wirion during carotid artery stenting. The study demonstrated 98.3% procedural success with stroke occurring in only 2.5%. Two single arm studies were identified investigating the efficacy of the Wirion filter during lower extremity endovascular interventions. The reported device success ranged from 95.1 to 97.3%. Conclusion: While carotid artery stenting should always be performed with adjunctive EPS in order to decrease the risk of cerebrovascular accidents, the routine use of EPS in femorpopliteal interventions remains an active area of investigation.

Staged carotid artery stenting in patients with severe carotid stenosis: Multicenter experience

Cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome (CHS) is serious complication after carotid artery stenting (CAS) caused by decreased cerebral vasoreactivity (CVR) due to long standing hypoperfusion of the brain. We hypothesized that partial dilatation of carotid stenosis would allow the recovery of CVR, and prevent CHS when definitive angioplasty with stent is performed afterward. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of staged CAS in patients with severe carotid artery stenosis with evident hemodynamic compromise in regard to preventing hyperperfusion syndrome. From January 2005 to February 2016, 53 patients with 55 severe carotid artery stenosis lesions showing decreased CVR and/or cerebral basal flow at the perfusion studies underwent staged CAS in three institutes. The procedure consisted of initial partial balloon angioplasty (BA), recovery period, and delayed definitive stenting (DS). We analyzed immediate results, complications, recoil and CHS related to staged CAS. We experienced no symptomatic manifestation of CHS except self-limited headache after the procedures. The median of intervals between BA and DS stages were 10 days. There was no case of severe recoil during the interval between BA and DS stage. Where perfusion imaging data was available, hyperperfusion was present in three and one patients after BA and DS stage, respectively, with no clinical symptom of CHS. In conclusion, staged CAS was feasible in patients with severe carotid artery stenosis and hemodynamic compromise, without inducing severe complication of CHS such as intracranial hemorrhage.

Independent Modular Filter for Embolic Protection in Carotid Stenting

BACKGROUND

Embolic protection during carotid artery stenting reduces the rate of thromboembolic events. The Wirion Embolic Protection System is used to deploy an independent distal filter using any 0.014″ guidewire. WISE study (Wirion Study Europe) evaluated the safety and performance of Wirion Embolic Protection System in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized, open-label, single-arm study of carotid artery stenting in high surgical risk patients was performed. The primary end point, a composite of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction at 30 days, was compared with performance goal derived from historical controls. Secondary end points were components of the primary end point and the device, angiographic, procedural, and clinical success rates. Preplanned interim analysis was performed on the first 120 patients. At interim analysis, the primary end point was significantly lower for the Wirion Embolic Protection System group, compared with historical data (3.3% versus 6.3%, respectively; P value =0.0008). Analysis of primary end point components in the WISE group, compared with the historical control group, shows numerically lower mortality (0% versus 1.7%, respectively; P=0.21), stroke (2.5% versus 4.6%, respectively; P=0.18), and myocardial infarction (0.8% versus 1.5%, respectively; P=0.50). Device, angiographic, procedural, and clinical success was achieved in 99.2%, 99.1%, 98.3%, and 96.6% of cases, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that independent modular filter use in carotid artery stenting in high surgical risk patients is safe and effective. The outcomes suggest that use of an independent modular filter may be associated with a lower rate of embolic complications associated with carotid stent placement.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01783639.

Carotid stenting versus endarterectomy for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis: Contemporary results from a large single center study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the complication rates associated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS).

BACKGROUND

Carotid stenosis is a well-known cause of stroke and increased mortality. The safety of carotid revascularization may be related to symptom status, medical comorbidities, use of embolic protection devices, as well as operator experience and these factors may vary across patient populations within a single operating center.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients with carotid artery stenosis admitted to our hospital for carotid revascularization between January 1, 2007 and December 1, 2013. The primary end point was a composite endpoint of periprocedural death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI).

RESULTS

Of the 718 patients admitted for carotid revascularization 525 (73.1%) underwent CEA and 193 (26.9%) underwent CAS. Both groups demonstrated similar rates of the composite endpoint, MI, and death; the stenting group demonstrated a higher rate of stroke (4.2% vs. 1.3%; P = 0.020). Adjusting for baseline medical comorbidities and symptom status mitigated this difference (P = 0.091 and 0.113, respectively). When stratified by department performing CAS, there was a significant difference in the occurrence of stroke (P = 0.033), which likewise disappeared in the multivariate regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

The risk of the composite endpoint did not differ significantly between those undergoing CAS versus CEA. The stenting group demonstrated a higher rate of periprocedural stroke, which was also apparent when patients were stratified by stenting department. These differences were likely driven by variation in baseline medical comorbidities and symptom status. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Carotid artery stenting

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has achieved clinical equipoise with carotid endarterectomy (CEA), as evidenced by 2 large U.S. randomized clinical trials, multiple pivotal registry trials, and 2 multispecialty guideline documents endorsed by 14 professional societies. The largest randomized trial conducted in patients at average surgical risk of CEA, CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial) found no difference between CAS and CEA for the combined endpoint of stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) after 4 years of follow-up. The largest randomized trial comparing CAS and CEA in patients at increased surgical risk, SAPPHIRE (Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy), looked at 1-year stroke, death, and MI incidence and found no difference in symptomatic patients, but a significantly better outcome in asymptomatic patients for CAS (9.9% vs. 21.5%; p = 0.02). Given that >70% of carotid revascularization procedures are performed in asymptomatic patients for primary prevention of stroke, it is incumbent upon clinicians to demonstrate that revascularization has an incremental benefit over highly effective modern medical therapy alone.

Carotid artery stenting: current and emerging options

Carotid artery stenting technologies are rapidly evolving. Options for endovascular surgeons and interventionists who treat occlusive carotid disease continue to expand. We here present an update and overview of carotid stenting devices. Evidence supporting carotid stenting includes randomized controlled trials that compare endovascular stenting to open surgical endarterectomy. Carotid technologies addressed include the carotid stents themselves as well as adjunct neuroprotective devices. Aspects of stent technology include bare-metal versus covered stents, stent tapering, and free-cell area. Drug-eluting and cutting balloon indications are described. Embolization protection options and new direct carotid access strategies are reviewed. Adjunct technologies, such as intravascular ultrasound imaging and risk stratification algorithms, are discussed. Bare-metal and covered stents provide unique advantages and disadvantages. Stent tapering may allow for a more fitted contour to the caliber decrement between the common carotid and internal carotid arteries but also introduces new technical challenges. Studies regarding free-cell area are conflicting with respect to benefits and associated risk; clinical relevance of associated adverse effects associated with either type is unclear. Embolization protection strategies include distal filter protection and flow reversal. Though flow reversal was initially met with some skepticism, it has gained wider acceptance and may provide the advantage of not crossing the carotid lesion before protection is established. New direct carotid access techniques address difficult anatomy and incorporate sophisticated flow-reversal embolization protection techniques. Carotid stenting is a new and exciting field with rapidly advancing technologies. Embolization protection, low-risk deployment, and lesion assessment and stratification are active areas of research. Ample room remains for further innovations and developments.

Cerebral embolic lesions detected with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging following carotid artery stenting: a meta-analysis of 8 studies comparing filter cerebral protection and proximal balloon occlusion

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of the 2 different neuroprotection systems in preventing embolization during carotid artery stenting (CAS), as detected by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI).

BACKGROUND

Data from randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing both types of embolic protection devices revealed contrasting evidence about their efficacy in neuroprotection, as assessed by the incidence of new ischemic lesions detected by DW-MRI.

METHODS

Eight studies, enrolling 357 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Our study analyzed the incidence of new ischemic lesions/patient, comparing filter cerebral protection and proximal balloon occlusion.

RESULTS

Following CAS, the incidence of new ischemic lesions/patient detected by DW-MRI was significantly lower in the proximal balloon occlusion group (effect size [ES]: -0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.84 to -0.02, I(2) = 70.08, Q = 23.40). Furthermore, following CAS, the incidence of lesions at the contralateral site was significantly lower in the proximal protection group (ES: -0.50; 95% CI: -0.72 to -0.27, I(2) = 0.00, Q = 3.80).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis supports the concept that the use of proximal balloon occlusion compared with filter cerebral protection is associated with a reduction of the amount of CAS-related brain embolization. The data should be confirmed by a randomized clinical trial.