Cargando…

Clinical Analysis Comparing Efficacy between a Distal Filter Protection Device and Proximal Balloon Occlusion Device during Carotid Artery Stenting

OBJECTIVE: The main concern during transfemoral carotid artery stenting (CAS) is preventing cerebral embolus dislodgement. We compared clinical outcomes and intraprocedural embolization rates of CAS using a distal filter protection device or proximal balloon occlusion device. METHODS: From January 2...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Jong Hyeok, Sohn, Hee Eon, Chung, Seung Young, Park, Moon Sun, Kim, Seong Min, Lee, Do Sung
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Neurosurgical Society 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4651990/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26587183
http://dx.doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2015.58.4.316
_version_ 1782401684909064192
author Lee, Jong Hyeok
Sohn, Hee Eon
Chung, Seung Young
Park, Moon Sun
Kim, Seong Min
Lee, Do Sung
author_facet Lee, Jong Hyeok
Sohn, Hee Eon
Chung, Seung Young
Park, Moon Sun
Kim, Seong Min
Lee, Do Sung
author_sort Lee, Jong Hyeok
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The main concern during transfemoral carotid artery stenting (CAS) is preventing cerebral embolus dislodgement. We compared clinical outcomes and intraprocedural embolization rates of CAS using a distal filter protection device or proximal balloon occlusion device. METHODS: From January 2011 to March 2015, a series of 58 patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis ≥70% were treated with CAS with embolic protection device in single center. All patients underwent post-CAS diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) to detect new ischemic lesions. We compared clinical outcomes and postprocedural embolization rates. RESULTS: CAS was performed in all 61 patients. Distal filter protection success rate was 96.6% (28/29), whose mean age was 70.9 years, and mean stenosis was 81%. Their preprocedural infarction rate was 39% (11/28). Subsequent DW-MRI revealed 96 new ischemic lesions in 71% (20/28) patients. In contrast, the proximal balloon occlusion device success rate was 93.8% (30/32), whose mean age was 68.8 years and mean stenosis was 86%. Preprocedure infarction rate was 47% (14/30). DW-MRI revealed 45 new ischemic lesions in 57% (17/30) patients. Compared with distal filter protection device, proximal balloon occlusion device resulted in fewer ischemic lesions per patient (p=0.028). In each group, type of stent during CAS had no significant effect on number of periprocedural embolisms. Only 2 neurologic events occurred in the successfully treated patients (one from each group). CONCLUSION: Transfemoral CAS with proximal balloon occlusion device achieves good results. Compared with distal filter protection, proximal balloon occlusion might be more effective in reducing cerebral embolism during CAS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4651990
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher The Korean Neurosurgical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46519902015-11-19 Clinical Analysis Comparing Efficacy between a Distal Filter Protection Device and Proximal Balloon Occlusion Device during Carotid Artery Stenting Lee, Jong Hyeok Sohn, Hee Eon Chung, Seung Young Park, Moon Sun Kim, Seong Min Lee, Do Sung J Korean Neurosurg Soc Clinical Article OBJECTIVE: The main concern during transfemoral carotid artery stenting (CAS) is preventing cerebral embolus dislodgement. We compared clinical outcomes and intraprocedural embolization rates of CAS using a distal filter protection device or proximal balloon occlusion device. METHODS: From January 2011 to March 2015, a series of 58 patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis ≥70% were treated with CAS with embolic protection device in single center. All patients underwent post-CAS diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) to detect new ischemic lesions. We compared clinical outcomes and postprocedural embolization rates. RESULTS: CAS was performed in all 61 patients. Distal filter protection success rate was 96.6% (28/29), whose mean age was 70.9 years, and mean stenosis was 81%. Their preprocedural infarction rate was 39% (11/28). Subsequent DW-MRI revealed 96 new ischemic lesions in 71% (20/28) patients. In contrast, the proximal balloon occlusion device success rate was 93.8% (30/32), whose mean age was 68.8 years and mean stenosis was 86%. Preprocedure infarction rate was 47% (14/30). DW-MRI revealed 45 new ischemic lesions in 57% (17/30) patients. Compared with distal filter protection device, proximal balloon occlusion device resulted in fewer ischemic lesions per patient (p=0.028). In each group, type of stent during CAS had no significant effect on number of periprocedural embolisms. Only 2 neurologic events occurred in the successfully treated patients (one from each group). CONCLUSION: Transfemoral CAS with proximal balloon occlusion device achieves good results. Compared with distal filter protection, proximal balloon occlusion might be more effective in reducing cerebral embolism during CAS. The Korean Neurosurgical Society 2015-10 2015-10-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4651990/ /pubmed/26587183 http://dx.doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2015.58.4.316 Text en Copyright © 2015 The Korean Neurosurgical Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Article
Lee, Jong Hyeok
Sohn, Hee Eon
Chung, Seung Young
Park, Moon Sun
Kim, Seong Min
Lee, Do Sung
Clinical Analysis Comparing Efficacy between a Distal Filter Protection Device and Proximal Balloon Occlusion Device during Carotid Artery Stenting
title Clinical Analysis Comparing Efficacy between a Distal Filter Protection Device and Proximal Balloon Occlusion Device during Carotid Artery Stenting
title_full Clinical Analysis Comparing Efficacy between a Distal Filter Protection Device and Proximal Balloon Occlusion Device during Carotid Artery Stenting
title_fullStr Clinical Analysis Comparing Efficacy between a Distal Filter Protection Device and Proximal Balloon Occlusion Device during Carotid Artery Stenting
title_full_unstemmed Clinical Analysis Comparing Efficacy between a Distal Filter Protection Device and Proximal Balloon Occlusion Device during Carotid Artery Stenting
title_short Clinical Analysis Comparing Efficacy between a Distal Filter Protection Device and Proximal Balloon Occlusion Device during Carotid Artery Stenting
title_sort clinical analysis comparing efficacy between a distal filter protection device and proximal balloon occlusion device during carotid artery stenting
topic Clinical Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4651990/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26587183
http://dx.doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2015.58.4.316
work_keys_str_mv AT leejonghyeok clinicalanalysiscomparingefficacybetweenadistalfilterprotectiondeviceandproximalballoonocclusiondeviceduringcarotidarterystenting
AT sohnheeeon clinicalanalysiscomparingefficacybetweenadistalfilterprotectiondeviceandproximalballoonocclusiondeviceduringcarotidarterystenting
AT chungseungyoung clinicalanalysiscomparingefficacybetweenadistalfilterprotectiondeviceandproximalballoonocclusiondeviceduringcarotidarterystenting
AT parkmoonsun clinicalanalysiscomparingefficacybetweenadistalfilterprotectiondeviceandproximalballoonocclusiondeviceduringcarotidarterystenting
AT kimseongmin clinicalanalysiscomparingefficacybetweenadistalfilterprotectiondeviceandproximalballoonocclusiondeviceduringcarotidarterystenting
AT leedosung clinicalanalysiscomparingefficacybetweenadistalfilterprotectiondeviceandproximalballoonocclusiondeviceduringcarotidarterystenting