Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2015
Clinical Analysis Comparing Efficacy between a Distal Filter Protection Device and Proximal Balloon Occlusion Device during Carotid Artery Stenting.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Lee Jong Hyeok, Sohn Hee Eon, Chung Seung Young, Park Moon Sun, Kim Seong Min, Lee Do Sung
Аннотация
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.
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.