Absolute and relative contraindications to proximal protection: do they really matter? A case-illustrative approach

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an established technique to treat carotid artery stenosis. Favorable results have been reported in different subsets of patients in both acute and long-term settings. Among the CAS periprocedural variables the type of cerebral protection - distal filter and proximal protection - play a pivot role to reduce cerebral embolization. Accumulating evidence is in favor of better performance of proximal protection vs. distal filters. However, the rate of worldwide penetration of this devise is low. Potential reasons include a lengthy list of technical issues that may account for the reluctance of filter-oriented operators to change systems. This paper shows how to identify, treat, and overcome these technical obstacles.

Carotid artery stenting in octogenarians using a proximal endovascular occlusion cerebral protection device: a multicenter registry

BACKGROUND

Carotid stenting (CAS) has been proposed as an alternative to carotid endoarterectomy also in elderly patients with discrepant results. However, the use of proximal neuroprotection devices have not been evaluated in octogenarians.

PURPOSE

The aim of this multicenter prospective registry was to demonstrate that CAS in octogenarians is safe and effective if performed in high-volume centers by experienced operators.

METHODS

From July 2005 to May 2009, a total of 198 octogenarians patients, in three different institutions, were included in this registry. All patients underwent CAS using proximal endovascular occlusion device (Mo.Ma. device Invatec, Roncadelle, Italy). An independent neurologist evaluated all patients. The primary endpoint was death and stroke rate at 30 days.

RESULTS

198 octogenarians (135 men; mean age: 83.2 years) were included in the registry. 39.4% of the patients were symptomatic. Procedural success was 100%. In-hospital complications: Two minor and two major strokes (2.02%) occurred. No device-related complications and no serious access site complication were noted. Between discharge and 30-day follow-up, one patient died due to a cardiac arrest. The overall 30-day combined stroke/death rate was 2.52%, resulting in 1.61% event incidence in asymptomatic and 3.9% in symptomatic patients (P = ns). Logistic regression did not identify independent predictor of neurological events, except in the female gender.

CONCLUSION

This multicenter prospective registry shows that CAS performed with proximal flow blockage is safe and feasible also in octogenarians. Thirty days death/stroke rates are similar to those of the overall population and within the International guidelines.

Safety and effectiveness of the INVATEC MO.MA proximal cerebral protection device during carotid artery stenting: results from the ARMOUR pivotal trial

OBJECTIVE

The multicenter ARMOUR (ProximAl PRotection with the MO.MA Device DUring CaRotid Stenting) trial evaluated the 30-day safety and effectiveness of the MO.MA Proximal Cerebral Protection Device (Invatec, Roncadelle, Italy) utilized to treat high surgical risk patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS).

BACKGROUND

Distal embolic protection devices (EPD) have been traditionally utilized during CAS. The MO.MA device acts as a balloon occlusion "endovascular clamping" system to achieve cerebral protection prior to crossing the carotid stenosis.

METHODS

This prospective registry enrolled 262 subjects, 37 roll-in and 225 pivotal subjects evaluated with intention to treat (ITT) from September 2007 to February 2009. Subjects underwent CAS using the MO.MA device. The primary endpoint, myocardial infarction, stroke, or death through 30 days (30-day major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events [MACCE]) was compared to a performance goal of 13% derived from trials utilizing distal EPD.

RESULTS

For the ITT population, the mean age was 74.7 years with 66.7% of the cohort being male. Symptomatic patients comprised 15.1% and 28.9% were octogenarians. Device success was 98.2% and procedural success was 93.2%. The 30-day MACCE rate was 2.7% [95% CI (1.0-5.8%)] with a 30-day major stroke rate of 0.9%. No symptomatic patient suffered a stroke during this trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The ARMOUR trial demonstrated that the MO.MA(R) Proximal Cerebral Protection Device is safe and effective for high surgical risk patients undergoing CAS. The absence of stroke in symptomatic patients is the lowest rate reported in any independently adjudicated prospective multicenter registry trial to date.

Proximal endovascular occlusion for carotid artery stenting: results from a prospective registry of 1,300 patients

OBJECTIVES

This single-center registry presents the results of proximal endovascular occlusion (PEO) use in an unselected patient population.

BACKGROUND

In published multicenter registries, the use of PEO for carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been demonstrated to be safe and efficient in patient populations selected for anatomical and/or clinical conditions.

METHODS

From July 2004 to May 2009, 1,300 patients underwent CAS using PEO. Patients received an independent neurological assessment before the procedure and 1 h, 24 h, and 30 days after the procedure.

RESULTS

Procedural success was achieved in 99.7% of patients. In hospital, major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events included 5 deaths (0.38%), 6 major strokes (0.46%), 5 minor strokes (0.38%), and no acute myocardial infarction. At 30 days of follow-up, 2 additional patients died (0.15%), and 1 patient had a minor stroke (0.07%). The 30-day stroke and death incidence was 1.38% (n = 19). Symptomatic patients presented a higher 30-day stroke and death incidence when compared with asymptomatic patients (3.04% vs. 0.82%; p < 0.05). No significant difference in 30-day stroke and death rate was observed between patients at high (1.88%; n = 12) and average surgical risk (1.07; n = 7) (p = NS). Operator experience, symptomatic status, and hypertension were found to be independent predictors of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of PEO for CAS is safe and effective in an unselected patient population. Anatomical and/or clinical conditions of high surgical risk were not associated with an increased rate of adverse events.