RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Contrast-induced encephalopathy (CIE) is an adverse event associated with diagnostic and therapeutic endovascular procedures. Decades of animal and human research support a mechanistic role for pathological blood-brain barrier dysfunction (BBBd). Here, we describe an institutional case series and review the literature supporting a mechanistic role for BBBd in CIE. METHODS: A literature review was conducted by searching MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases from inception to January 31, 2022. We searched our institutional neurovascular database for cases of CIE following endovascular treatment of cerebrovascular disease during a 6-month period. Informed consent was obtained in all cases. RESULTS: Review of the literature revealed risk factors for BBBd and CIE, including microvascular disease, pathological neuroinflammation, severe procedural hypertension, iodinated contrast load and altered cerebral blood flow dynamics. In our institutional series, 6 of 52 (11.5%) of patients undergoing therapeutic neuroendovascular procedures developed CIE during the study period. Four patients were treated for ischemic stroke and two patients for recurrent cerebral aneurysms. Mechanical stenting or thrombectomy were utilized in all cases. CONCLUSION: In this institutional case series and literature review of animal and human data, we identified numerous shared risk factors for CIE and BBBd, including microvascular disease, increased procedure length, large contrast volumes, severe intraoperative hypertension and use of mechanical devices that may induce iatrogenic endothelial injury.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Radial arterial access has gained interest for neurovascular procedures in recent years. Although there are no randomized control trials for neurointervention procedures using radial access, there is growing literature demonstrating its feasibility and favorable outcomes. Equipment technical improvements, like the recently introduced BENCHMARK™ BMX®81 System, have made radial navigation safer, with improved maneuverability and support for a variety of procedures. We present a multicenter case series highlighting our institutional radial access experience comparing the BMX®81 with alternative catheters. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective cohort study of 80 patients who underwent neurovascular procedures through a radial approach. In half of the cases a BENCHMARK™ BMX®81 System was used. The comparison group consisted of the BENCHMARK™071 and 96, Neuron MAX®088 and BALLAST™ systems. Procedures included endovascular thrombectomy, carotid and brachiocephalic artery stenting, middle meningeal artery embolization, flow diverter stenting, vertebral artery sacrifice, aneurysm coiling, and WEB™ device deployment. RESULTS: In our series, the BMX®81 was successful in the navigation of the anatomy to the target location in 95% of cases. No radial access or BMX®81 related complications were identified. There was no significant difference in fluoroscopy time between the BMX81 and the comparison group. Four patients in the comparison group had catheter-related complications due to vasospasm. Eighty-six percent of BMX®81 cases had satisfactory outcomes and no technical difficulties. The remainder presented technical difficulties, but none of these were considered secondary to the puncture site or support structure. CONCLUSIONS: The BENCHMARK™ BMX®81 System is a recently developed guiding catheter which has design and size features supporting radial access for a variety of neurovascular interventions. Early multicenter experience highlights the ease of use and versatility of this new catheter as an alternative to transfemoral access as well as other catheters used for radial access.