Purpose: To compare the feasibility and safety of proximal cerebral protection to a distal filter during carotid artery stenting (CAS) via a transbrachial (TB) or transradial (TR) approach. Methods: Among 856 patients who underwent CAS between January 2007 and July 2015, 214 (25%) patients (mean age 72±8 years; 154 men) had the procedure via a TR (n=154) or TB (n=60) approach with either Mo.MA proximal protection (n=61) or distal filter protection (n=153). The Mo.MA group (mean age 73±7 years; 54 men) had significantly more men and more severe stenosis than the filter group (mean age 71±8 years; 100 men). Stent type and CAS technique were left to operator discretion. Heparin and a dedicated closure device or bivalirudin and manual compression were used in TR and TB accesses, respectively. Technical and procedure success, crossover to femoral artery, 30-day major adverse cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events (MACCE; death, all strokes, and myocardial infarction), vascular complications, and radiation exposure were compared between groups. Results: Crossover to a femoral approach was required in 1/61 (1.6%) Mo.MA patient vs 11/153 (7.1%) filter patients mainly due to technical difficulty in engaging the target vessel. Five Mo.MA patients developed acute intolerance to proximal occlusion; 4 were successfully shifted to filter protection. A TR patient was shifted to filter because the Mo.MA system was too short. CAS was technically successful in the remaining 55 (90%) Mo.MA patients and 142 (93%) filter patients. The MACCE rate was 0% in the Mo.MA patients and 2.8% in the filter group (p=0.18). Radiation exposure was similar between groups. Major vascular complications occurred in 1/61 (1.6%) and in 3/153 (1.96%) patients in the Mo.MA and filter groups (p=0.18), respectively, and were confined to the TB approach in the early part of the learning curve. Chronic radial artery occlusion was detected by Doppler ultrasound in 2/30 (6.6%) Mo.MA patients and in 4/124 (3.2%) filter patients by clinical assessment (p=0.25) at 8.1±7.5-month follow-up. Conclusion: CAS with proximal protection via a TR or TB approach is a feasible, safe, and effective technique with a low rate of vascular complications.

Carotid artery stenting with proximal embolic protection via a transradial or transbrachial approach : pushing the boundaries of the technique while maintaining safety and efficacy / P. Montorsi, S. Galli, P.M. Ravagnani, S. Tresoldi, G. Teruzzi, L. Caputi, D. Trabattoni, F. Fabbiocchi, G. Calligaris, L. Grancini, A. Lualdi, S. De Martini, A.L. Bartorelli. - In: JOURNAL OF ENDOVASCULAR THERAPY. - ISSN 1526-6028. - 23:4(2016), pp. 549-560.

Carotid artery stenting with proximal embolic protection via a transradial or transbrachial approach : pushing the boundaries of the technique while maintaining safety and efficacy

P. Montorsi
;
A. Lualdi;A.L. Bartorelli
Ultimo
2016

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the feasibility and safety of proximal cerebral protection to a distal filter during carotid artery stenting (CAS) via a transbrachial (TB) or transradial (TR) approach. Methods: Among 856 patients who underwent CAS between January 2007 and July 2015, 214 (25%) patients (mean age 72±8 years; 154 men) had the procedure via a TR (n=154) or TB (n=60) approach with either Mo.MA proximal protection (n=61) or distal filter protection (n=153). The Mo.MA group (mean age 73±7 years; 54 men) had significantly more men and more severe stenosis than the filter group (mean age 71±8 years; 100 men). Stent type and CAS technique were left to operator discretion. Heparin and a dedicated closure device or bivalirudin and manual compression were used in TR and TB accesses, respectively. Technical and procedure success, crossover to femoral artery, 30-day major adverse cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events (MACCE; death, all strokes, and myocardial infarction), vascular complications, and radiation exposure were compared between groups. Results: Crossover to a femoral approach was required in 1/61 (1.6%) Mo.MA patient vs 11/153 (7.1%) filter patients mainly due to technical difficulty in engaging the target vessel. Five Mo.MA patients developed acute intolerance to proximal occlusion; 4 were successfully shifted to filter protection. A TR patient was shifted to filter because the Mo.MA system was too short. CAS was technically successful in the remaining 55 (90%) Mo.MA patients and 142 (93%) filter patients. The MACCE rate was 0% in the Mo.MA patients and 2.8% in the filter group (p=0.18). Radiation exposure was similar between groups. Major vascular complications occurred in 1/61 (1.6%) and in 3/153 (1.96%) patients in the Mo.MA and filter groups (p=0.18), respectively, and were confined to the TB approach in the early part of the learning curve. Chronic radial artery occlusion was detected by Doppler ultrasound in 2/30 (6.6%) Mo.MA patients and in 4/124 (3.2%) filter patients by clinical assessment (p=0.25) at 8.1±7.5-month follow-up. Conclusion: CAS with proximal protection via a TR or TB approach is a feasible, safe, and effective technique with a low rate of vascular complications.
brachial artery access; carotid artery stent; cerebral protection; embolic protection; filter; proximal embolic protection; radial artery access
Settore MED/11 - Malattie dell'Apparato Cardiovascolare
2016
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1526602816651424.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 648.5 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
648.5 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/485477
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 34
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 30
social impact