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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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