| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Head and Neck Imaging |
1 From the Departments of Radiology (J.A.V., J.C.v.d.B., T.T.C.O., H.P.M.v.H.), Cardiology (S.M.P.G.E., M.J.S.), Neurology (H.W.M., O.J.M.V.), and Clinical Neurophysiology (O.J.M.V., R.G.A.A.), St Antonius Hospital, Koekoekslaan 1, 3435 CM Nieuwegein, the Netherlands; and Departments of Vascular Surgery (F.L.M.), Clinical Epidemiology (Y.v.d.G.), and Radiology (W.P.T.M.), University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Received January 22, 2004; revision requested March 31; revision received April 29; accepted June 2. Address correspondence to J.A.V. (e-mail: j.a.vos@antonius.net).
PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate emboli detected at transcranial Doppler ultrasonography (US) and outcome of carotid angioplasty and stent placement and compare these findings in patients treated with the use of filtering cerebral protection devices (CPDs) with the findings in patients treated without the use of filtering CPDs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional human research committee. Written informed consent was obtained for all patients. Patients were divided into three groups: 161 patients treated before filtering CPDs had become available (group 1), 151 patients treated with filtering CPDs (group 2), and 197 patients treated without CPDs after CPDs had become available (group 3). Clinical end points were cerebral ischemic events and death. Transcranial Doppler US end points included isolated microemboli, microembolic showers, macroemboli, and distal thrombus. The procedure was divided into five phases: wiring, predilation, stent deployment, postdilation, and CPD handling. Data not distributed normally were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U statistic. For binomial data, the 
2 test was used. P < .05 indicated statistical significance.
RESULTS: For each phase, median and interquartile range (IQR) for isolated microemboli in group 2 versus group 3 were as follows: wiring, 51 (IQR, 31–69) versus 27 (IQR, 15–48); predilation, 19 (IQR, 13–33) versus 13 (IQR, 8–19); stent deployment, 64 (IQR, 46–82) versus 48.5 (IQR, 33.25–66); and postdilation, 24 (IQR, 14–39) versus 16 (IQR, 11–27.5) (P < .001 for each phase). Median and IQR for microembolic showers were as follows: wiring, 0 (IQR, 0–3) versus 0 (IQR, 0–0); predilation, 1.5 (IQR, 0–4) versus 0 (IQR, 0–2); stent deployment, 22 (IQR, 11–36) versus 11 (IQR, 6–17); postdilation, three (IQR, 0–9) versus one (IQR, 0–4); (postdilation phase, P = .001; all other phases, P < .001). Median for isolated microemboli in group 1 versus groups 2 and 3 combined were as follows: predilation, 10 (IQR, 5–22.75) versus 16 (IQR, 9–25) (P = .001); stent deployment, 32 (IQR, 15–58) versus 54 (IQR, 40.5–74) (P < .001); and postdilation, 11 (IQR, 6–19) versus 18 (IQR, 12–33) (P < .001). Median for microembolic showers during stent deployment were six (IQR, 1–14) versus 13 (IQR, 7–26) (P < .001). Five patients died, and five major strokes and 14 minor strokes occurred. Eight macroemboli occurred in unprotected procedures; six distal thrombi occurred in protected procedures.
CONCLUSION: Carotid angioplasty and stent placement yielded more microemboli in patients treated with filtering CPDs than in unprotected procedures. The infrequent occurrence of cerebral sequelae did not allow comprehensive statistical comparison between groups.
© RSNA, 2004
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  F. Perona, G. Castellazzi, L. Valvassori, E. Boccardi, L. de Girolamo, G. P. Cornalba, and K. Kandarpa Safety of Unprotected Carotid Artery Stent Placement in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Patients: A Retrospective Analysis of 30-day Combined Adverse Outcomes Radiology, December 1, 2008; 250(1): 178 - 183. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. G. DeRubertis Embolization During Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting : What Is the Optimal Method for Detecting Embolic Debris and Its Sequelae? Perspectives in Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, September 1, 2008; 20(3): 260 - 269. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Ribo, C. A. Molina, B. Alvarez, M. Rubiera, J. Alvarez-Sabin, and M. Matas Transcranial Doppler Monitoring of Transcervical Carotid Stenting With Flow Reversal Protection: A Novel Carotid Revascularization Technique Stroke, November 1, 2006; 37(11): 2846 - 2849. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Maleux, P. Demaerel, E. Verbeken, K. Daenens, S. Heye, F. Van Sonhoven, A. Nevelsteen, and G. Wilms Cerebral ischemia after filter-protected carotid artery stenting is common and cannot be predicted by the presence of substantial amount of debris captured by the filter device. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., October 1, 2006; 27(9): 1830 - 1833. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Kastrup, T. Nagele, K. Groschel, F. Schmidt, E. Vogler, J. Schulz, and U. Ernemann Incidence of New Brain Lesions After Carotid Stenting With and Without Cerebral Protection Stroke, September 1, 2006; 37(9): 2312 - 2316. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. du Mesnil de Rochemont, S. Schneider, B. Yan, A. Lehr, M. Sitzer, and J. Berkefeld Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging Lesions after Filter-Protected Stenting of High-Grade Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenoses AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., June 1, 2006; 27(6): 1321 - 1325. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Pelz, T. Andersson, M. Soderman, P. Lylyk, and M. Negoro Advances in Interventional Neuroradiology 2005 Stroke, February 1, 2006; 37(2): 309 - 311. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. I. Bluth, J. A. Vos, and R. G. A. Ackerstaff Value of US in Selecting Patients for Carotid Angioplasty and Stent Placement * Drs Vos and Ackerstaff respond: Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 374 - 375. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
