Vestnik rentgenologii i radiologii · 2013
[Internal carotid artery stenting with proximal protection systems in patients with concomitant external carotid artery injury].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Оригинал на русском
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Khripun A V, Malevannyĭ M V, Kulikovskikh Ia V, Fomenko E P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the possibility, efficiency, and safety of using the proximal protection systems in patients with concomitant injury to the ipsilateral external carotid artery (ECA) during internal carotid artery (ICA) stenting.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The results of ICA stenting were analyzed in 39 patients. Their mean age was 66.4 +/- 7.8 years; 29 (74.4%) patients were male. All the patients were symptomatic. The time of ICA blood flow arrest averaged 5.4 +/- 2.1 min. Intolerance to blood flow arrest was noted in 3 (7.7%) patients. The intervention time was 27.6 +/- 8.3 min. The results were assessed from progress in positioning a proximal protection system and ensuring adequate cerebral embolic protection and from the presence of new neurological symptoms, acute coronary events, and fatal outcomes during hospitalization.
RESULTS: The proximal protection system could be positioned in 100% of cases, which allowed ICA stenting to be successfully accomplished in all the patients with concomitant injury to the ipsilateral ECA. During hospitalization, the patients were found to have no new neurological symptoms. They had no acute coronary events or fatal outcomes either.
CONCLUSION: The proximal protection systems are technically possible, effective, and safe in patients with concomitant ipsilateral ECA during cervical ICA stenting.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The results of ICA stenting were analyzed in 39 patients. Their mean age was 66.4 +/- 7.8 years; 29 (74.4%) patients were male. All the patients were symptomatic. The time of ICA blood flow arrest averaged 5.4 +/- 2.1 min. Intolerance to blood flow arrest was noted in 3 (7.7%) patients. The intervention time was 27.6 +/- 8.3 min. The results were assessed from progress in positioning a proximal protection system and ensuring adequate cerebral embolic protection and from the presence of new neurological symptoms, acute coronary events, and fatal outcomes during hospitalization.
RESULTS: The proximal protection system could be positioned in 100% of cases, which allowed ICA stenting to be successfully accomplished in all the patients with concomitant injury to the ipsilateral ECA. During hospitalization, the patients were found to have no new neurological symptoms. They had no acute coronary events or fatal outcomes either.
CONCLUSION: The proximal protection systems are technically possible, effective, and safe in patients with concomitant ipsilateral ECA during cervical ICA stenting.