Search

BackgroundProximal protection devices, such as the Mo.Ma system provides better neurological outcomes than the distal filter system in the carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedure. This study first evaluated the safety and efficacy of the Mo.Ma system during CAS in a single tertiary referral hospital from Taiwan. The outcomes of distal vs. proximal embolic protection devices were also studied.MethodsA total of 294 patients with carotid artery stenosis who underwent the CAS procedure were retrospectively included and divided into two groups: 152 patients in the distal filter system group and 142 patients in the Mo.Ma system. The outcomes of interest were compared between the two groups. The factors contributing to occlusion intolerance (OI) in the Mo.Ma system were evaluated.ResultsThe procedure success rates were more than 98% in both groups. No major stroke occurred in this study. The minor stroke rates were 2.8% (4/142) and 4.6% (7/152) in the Mo.Ma system and filter system, respectively (p = 0.419). Patients with hypoalbuminemia significantly predicted the risk of stroke with an odds ratio of 0.08 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.01–0.68, p = 0.020] per 1 g/day of serum albumin in the filter group. A total of 12 patients developed OI in the Mo.Ma system (12/142, 8%). Low occlusion pressure predicted the occurrence of OI in the Mo.Ma group with the hazard ratios of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82–0.96) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.84–0.98) per 1 mmHg of occlusion systolic pressure (OSP) and diastolic pressure (ODP), respectively. We further indicated that patients with an OSP of ≥60 mmHg or an ODP of ≥44 mmHg could tolerate the procedure of occlusion time up to 400 s, while patients with an OSP of

The article analyzes a retrospective analysis of long-term results of 316 carotid stentings performed in patients with atherosclerotic stenosis of the extracranial parts of the internal carotid arteries using various types of cerebral protection devices – filters and proximal protection devices and their combinations. As a result of the analysis, we obtained data on the influence of the choice of cerebral protection devices on the risks of ischemic complications. The topic under consideration will be of interest to specialists in X-ray endovascular diagnostics and treatment, cardiovascular surgeons, and neurologists.

To evaluate the flow reversal efficacy of the Parodi antiembolism system (PAES) in the prevention of distal emboli during carotid stenting. A total of 90 patients were treated for internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis with a stent device. A PAES device was used in 31 symptomatic and 5 asymptomatic patients (total 36 patients) with ICA stenosis, and 54 patients were stented without any protection device. Diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging was performed before and after stenting. In the group without PAES protection, 23 out of 54 patients showed new lesions on DW images after stenting. Of the lesions seen, 147 (2.72 lesions/patient) were in the vessel-dependent area. In the group with protection, 19 out of 36 patients had new lesions, and only 34 (0.94 lesions/patient) were noted in the vessel-dependent area. The number of new lesions in the nondependent vessel area did not differ if a protection system was used ( P = 0.671). The use of PAES led to a significant reduction ( P = 0.024) in the incidence of the most frequently seen lesions (size <2 mm). The stroke death rate was 3.3% overall, 3.7% in the group without protection device, and 2.7% in the PAES group. There were no permanent neurological deficits after 3 months. The PAES is a safe and effective tool to reduce the incidence of embolic complications during carotid stenting. Older patients and patients with higher grade stenosis seem to profit more. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Der Radiologe is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)