Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Feasibility of carotid artery stenting with double cerebral embolic protection in high-risk patients.
Varbella, Ferdinando; Gagnor, Andrea; Rolfo, Cristina; Cerrato, Enrico; Bollati, Mario; Giay Pron, Paolo; Hartwig, Massimo; Palacio Restrepo, Sara; Reggiani, Monica; Amarù, Salvatore; Luda di Cortemiglia, Emilio; Tomassini, Francesco.
Afiliação
  • Varbella F; Department of Cardiology, Infermi Hospital, Rivoli, Italy.
  • Gagnor A; Department of Cardiology, Infermi Hospital, Rivoli, Italy.
  • Rolfo C; Department of Cardiology, Infermi Hospital, Rivoli, Italy.
  • Cerrato E; Department of Cardiology, Infermi Hospital, Rivoli, Italy.
  • Bollati M; Department of Cardiology, S. Ambrogio Clinical Institute, Milan, Italy.
  • Giay Pron P; Department of Cardiology, Infermi Hospital, Rivoli, Italy.
  • Hartwig M; Department of Cardiology, Infermi Hospital, Rivoli, Italy.
  • Palacio Restrepo S; Department of Cardiology, Infermi Hospital, Rivoli, Italy.
  • Reggiani M; Department of Neurology, Infermi Hospital, Rivoli, Italy.
  • Amarù S; Department of Neurology, Infermi Hospital, Rivoli, Italy.
  • Luda di Cortemiglia E; Department of Neurology, Infermi Hospital, Rivoli, Italy.
  • Tomassini F; Department of Cardiology, Infermi Hospital, Rivoli, Italy.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv ; 87(3): 432-7, 2016 Feb 15.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26354364
BACKGROUND: Previous trials comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy have shown that the former can increase the stroke rate. However, in the last years, because of the improvements either of the technique or the improvement of the stents and embolic protection devices (EPD), CAS has become a very competitive procedure. In this study, we tried to assess the feasibility and the safety of using double EPD (proximal and distal) in high-risk patients. METHODS: We collected data about all consecutive patients with carotid artery stenosis who underwent CAS and compared clinical and procedural characteristics as well as immediate and 30-day outcomes between the use of double vs. single EPD. RESULTS: Between November 2007 and August 2014, 294 patients underwent CAS. In 35 of them (11.9%) double EPD was used. In comparison with the patients treated with single EPD, those with double EPD presented more with acute carotid syndrome (recurrent TIAs < 48 hr, minor stroke < 14 days) and with complex plaque (79.4 vs. 33.6%, P < 0.0001). There was no difference between the 2 groups in primary success (100 vs. 99.6%, P = 0.16) and in 30-days major complications: death (0 vs. 0.8%, P = 0.6), major stroke (0 vs. 0.8%, P = 0.42), and minor stroke (0 vs 1.1%, P = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, in high-risk patients with high-risk lesions, the use of double EPD (proximal and distal) is safe and effective in minimizing the risk of cerebral embolization, but, to validate such a technique in wide range of patients, further studies are warranted.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Stents / Estenose das Carótidas / Angioplastia com Balão / Acidente Vascular Cerebral / Dispositivos de Proteção Embólica Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Stents / Estenose das Carótidas / Angioplastia com Balão / Acidente Vascular Cerebral / Dispositivos de Proteção Embólica Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article