Comparison of embolization protection device-specific technical difficulties during carotid artery stenting.

摘要

BACKGROUND: Embolic protection devices (EPDs) consisting of an internal carotid artery (ICA) filter or balloon occlusion are typically used during carotid artery stenting (CAS). This study compares the technical difficulties encountered using these two types of EPD. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients undergoing CAS using a balloon occlusion EPD (balloon group: PercuSurge GuardWire) or filter EPD (filter group: Accunet, AngioGuard, or FilterWire). Complications were defined as minor stroke, National Institutes of Health (NIH) stroke scale <3; major stroke, NIH stroke scale > or =3; transient ischemic attack (TIA), reversible focal neurologic impairment; technical, reversible neurologic compromise during EPD deployment, inability to cross lesion, ICA spasm requiring treatment, EPD-related factors that prolonged CAS. RESULTS: CAS (n = 141) was performed in 133 patients (82% men) with a mean age of 72 of years. Comorbidities included diabetes, 35%; coronary artery disease, 75%; hypertension, 82%; and renal insufficiency, 15%. Indication was previous cerebrovascular accident in 10%, TIA in 29%, and asymptomatic >80% stenosis in 61%. Primary lesions were treated in 83% vs restenosis in 17%. The 30-day event rate was 1.4% major stroke, 2.1% minor stoke, 1.4% myocardial infarction, and 0.7% death. The overall combined 30-day stroke, death, and myocardial infarction rate was 5.6%. The 30-day stroke and death rate was 4.0% in the balloon group (n = 99) and 4.6% in the filter group (n = 42, P = .51). EPD-related technical difficulties occurred in 15% of the balloon group and 31% of the filter group (P < .05). Technical difficulties included a 10% incidence of reversible neurologic compromise during balloon deployment compared with 0% in the filter group (P = .002) and 12% incidence of inability to cross the lesion before predilation in the filter group compared with 0% in the balloon group (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: During CAS, both balloon occlusion and filter devices provide acceptable results and appear complimentary. Filters can be used preferentially to avoid a 10% incidence of reversible neurologic compromise associated with balloon occlusion, except in critically narrowed or tortuous lesions when balloon occlusion may be preferred because of a 12% need for unprotected predilatation with filters.