Cargando…
Safety of embolic protection device-assisted and unprotected intravascular ultrasound in evaluating carotid artery atherosclerotic lesions
BACKGROUND: Significant atherosclerotic stenosis of internal carotid artery (ICA) origin is common (5–10% at ≥60 years). Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) enables high-resolution (120 μm) plaque imaging, and IVUS-elucidated features of the coronary plaque were recently shown to be associated with its...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
International Scientific Literature, Inc.
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3560589/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22293887 http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.882452 |
_version_ | 1782257812025376768 |
---|---|
author | Musialek, Piotr Pieniazek, Piotr Tracz, Wieslawa Tekieli, Lukasz Przewlocki, Tadeusz Kablak-Ziembicka, Anna Motyl, Rafal Moczulski, Zbigniew Stepniewski, Jakub Trystula, Mariusz Zajdel, Wojciech Roslawiecka, Agnieszka Zmudka, Krzysztof Podolec, Piotr |
author_facet | Musialek, Piotr Pieniazek, Piotr Tracz, Wieslawa Tekieli, Lukasz Przewlocki, Tadeusz Kablak-Ziembicka, Anna Motyl, Rafal Moczulski, Zbigniew Stepniewski, Jakub Trystula, Mariusz Zajdel, Wojciech Roslawiecka, Agnieszka Zmudka, Krzysztof Podolec, Piotr |
author_sort | Musialek, Piotr |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Significant atherosclerotic stenosis of internal carotid artery (ICA) origin is common (5–10% at ≥60 years). Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) enables high-resolution (120 μm) plaque imaging, and IVUS-elucidated features of the coronary plaque were recently shown to be associated with its symptomatic rupture/thrombosis risk. Safety of the significant carotid plaque IVUS imaging in a large unselected population is unknown. MATERIAL/METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the safety of embolic protection device (EPD)-assisted vs. unprotected ICA-IVUS in a series of consecutive subjects with ≥50% ICA stenosis referred for carotid artery stenting (CAS), including 104 asymptomatic (aS) and 187 symptomatic (S) subjects (age 47–83 y, 187 men). EPD use was optional for IVUS, but mandatory for CAS. RESULTS: Evaluation was performed of 107 ICAs (36.8%) without EPD and 184 with EPD. Lesions imaged under EPD were overall more severe (peak-systolic velocity 2.97±0.08 vs. 2.20±0.08m/s, end-diastolic velocity 1.0±0.04 vs. 0.7±0.03 m/s, stenosis severity of 85.7±0.5% vs. 77.7±0.6% by catheter angiography; mean ±SEM; p<0.01 for all comparisons) and more frequently S (50.0% vs. 34.6%, p=0.01). No ICA perforation or dissection, and no major stroke or death occurred. There was no IVUS-triggered cerebral embolization. In the procedures of (i) unprotected IVUS and no CAS, (ii) unprotected IVUS followed by CAS (filters – 39, flow reversal/blockade – 3), (iii) EPD-protected (filters – 135, flow reversal/blockade – 48) IVUS+CAS, TIA occurred in 1.5% vs. 4.8% vs. 2.7%, respectively, and minor stroke in 0% vs. 2.4% vs. 2.1%, respectively. EPD intolerance (on-filter ICA spasm or flow reversal/blockade intolerance) occurred in 9/225 (4.0%). IVUS increased the procedure duration by 7.27±0.19 min. CONCLUSIONS: Carotid IVUS is safe and, for the less severe lesions in particular, it may not require mandatory EPD use. High-risk lesions can be safely evaluated with IVUS under flow reversal/blockade. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3560589 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | International Scientific Literature, Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-35605892013-04-24 Safety of embolic protection device-assisted and unprotected intravascular ultrasound in evaluating carotid artery atherosclerotic lesions Musialek, Piotr Pieniazek, Piotr Tracz, Wieslawa Tekieli, Lukasz Przewlocki, Tadeusz Kablak-Ziembicka, Anna Motyl, Rafal Moczulski, Zbigniew Stepniewski, Jakub Trystula, Mariusz Zajdel, Wojciech Roslawiecka, Agnieszka Zmudka, Krzysztof Podolec, Piotr Med Sci Monit Diagnostics and Medical Technology BACKGROUND: Significant atherosclerotic stenosis of internal carotid artery (ICA) origin is common (5–10% at ≥60 years). Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) enables high-resolution (120 μm) plaque imaging, and IVUS-elucidated features of the coronary plaque were recently shown to be associated with its symptomatic rupture/thrombosis risk. Safety of the significant carotid plaque IVUS imaging in a large unselected population is unknown. MATERIAL/METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the safety of embolic protection device (EPD)-assisted vs. unprotected ICA-IVUS in a series of consecutive subjects with ≥50% ICA stenosis referred for carotid artery stenting (CAS), including 104 asymptomatic (aS) and 187 symptomatic (S) subjects (age 47–83 y, 187 men). EPD use was optional for IVUS, but mandatory for CAS. RESULTS: Evaluation was performed of 107 ICAs (36.8%) without EPD and 184 with EPD. Lesions imaged under EPD were overall more severe (peak-systolic velocity 2.97±0.08 vs. 2.20±0.08m/s, end-diastolic velocity 1.0±0.04 vs. 0.7±0.03 m/s, stenosis severity of 85.7±0.5% vs. 77.7±0.6% by catheter angiography; mean ±SEM; p<0.01 for all comparisons) and more frequently S (50.0% vs. 34.6%, p=0.01). No ICA perforation or dissection, and no major stroke or death occurred. There was no IVUS-triggered cerebral embolization. In the procedures of (i) unprotected IVUS and no CAS, (ii) unprotected IVUS followed by CAS (filters – 39, flow reversal/blockade – 3), (iii) EPD-protected (filters – 135, flow reversal/blockade – 48) IVUS+CAS, TIA occurred in 1.5% vs. 4.8% vs. 2.7%, respectively, and minor stroke in 0% vs. 2.4% vs. 2.1%, respectively. EPD intolerance (on-filter ICA spasm or flow reversal/blockade intolerance) occurred in 9/225 (4.0%). IVUS increased the procedure duration by 7.27±0.19 min. CONCLUSIONS: Carotid IVUS is safe and, for the less severe lesions in particular, it may not require mandatory EPD use. High-risk lesions can be safely evaluated with IVUS under flow reversal/blockade. International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2012-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3560589/ /pubmed/22293887 http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.882452 Text en © Med Sci Monit, 2012 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. |
spellingShingle | Diagnostics and Medical Technology Musialek, Piotr Pieniazek, Piotr Tracz, Wieslawa Tekieli, Lukasz Przewlocki, Tadeusz Kablak-Ziembicka, Anna Motyl, Rafal Moczulski, Zbigniew Stepniewski, Jakub Trystula, Mariusz Zajdel, Wojciech Roslawiecka, Agnieszka Zmudka, Krzysztof Podolec, Piotr Safety of embolic protection device-assisted and unprotected intravascular ultrasound in evaluating carotid artery atherosclerotic lesions |
title | Safety of embolic protection device-assisted and unprotected intravascular ultrasound in evaluating carotid artery atherosclerotic lesions |
title_full | Safety of embolic protection device-assisted and unprotected intravascular ultrasound in evaluating carotid artery atherosclerotic lesions |
title_fullStr | Safety of embolic protection device-assisted and unprotected intravascular ultrasound in evaluating carotid artery atherosclerotic lesions |
title_full_unstemmed | Safety of embolic protection device-assisted and unprotected intravascular ultrasound in evaluating carotid artery atherosclerotic lesions |
title_short | Safety of embolic protection device-assisted and unprotected intravascular ultrasound in evaluating carotid artery atherosclerotic lesions |
title_sort | safety of embolic protection device-assisted and unprotected intravascular ultrasound in evaluating carotid artery atherosclerotic lesions |
topic | Diagnostics and Medical Technology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3560589/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22293887 http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.882452 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT musialekpiotr safetyofembolicprotectiondeviceassistedandunprotectedintravascularultrasoundinevaluatingcarotidarteryatheroscleroticlesions AT pieniazekpiotr safetyofembolicprotectiondeviceassistedandunprotectedintravascularultrasoundinevaluatingcarotidarteryatheroscleroticlesions AT traczwieslawa safetyofembolicprotectiondeviceassistedandunprotectedintravascularultrasoundinevaluatingcarotidarteryatheroscleroticlesions AT tekielilukasz safetyofembolicprotectiondeviceassistedandunprotectedintravascularultrasoundinevaluatingcarotidarteryatheroscleroticlesions AT przewlockitadeusz safetyofembolicprotectiondeviceassistedandunprotectedintravascularultrasoundinevaluatingcarotidarteryatheroscleroticlesions AT kablakziembickaanna safetyofembolicprotectiondeviceassistedandunprotectedintravascularultrasoundinevaluatingcarotidarteryatheroscleroticlesions AT motylrafal safetyofembolicprotectiondeviceassistedandunprotectedintravascularultrasoundinevaluatingcarotidarteryatheroscleroticlesions AT moczulskizbigniew safetyofembolicprotectiondeviceassistedandunprotectedintravascularultrasoundinevaluatingcarotidarteryatheroscleroticlesions AT stepniewskijakub safetyofembolicprotectiondeviceassistedandunprotectedintravascularultrasoundinevaluatingcarotidarteryatheroscleroticlesions AT trystulamariusz safetyofembolicprotectiondeviceassistedandunprotectedintravascularultrasoundinevaluatingcarotidarteryatheroscleroticlesions AT zajdelwojciech safetyofembolicprotectiondeviceassistedandunprotectedintravascularultrasoundinevaluatingcarotidarteryatheroscleroticlesions AT roslawieckaagnieszka safetyofembolicprotectiondeviceassistedandunprotectedintravascularultrasoundinevaluatingcarotidarteryatheroscleroticlesions AT zmudkakrzysztof safetyofembolicprotectiondeviceassistedandunprotectedintravascularultrasoundinevaluatingcarotidarteryatheroscleroticlesions AT podolecpiotr safetyofembolicprotectiondeviceassistedandunprotectedintravascularultrasoundinevaluatingcarotidarteryatheroscleroticlesions |