Carotid stenting in Nepal: Our experience with two cases of carotid stenosis

Carotid artery stenosis is one of the important risk factors for stroke. Carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting are the available treatment options for managing carotid artery stenosis patients. The technology shift towards carotid artery stenting is promising due to its less invasive approach. Carotid artery stenting has become an alternative for surgically high-risk patients and high carotid lesions (lesions located at or above the second cervical vertebra). Here, we present two cases with carotid artery stenosis who were successfully treated with open-cell type carotid stent with distal filter embolic protection device.

Preliminary Experience With Transcranial Doppler Monitoring in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Revascularization: Initial Observations on Cerebral Embolization Patterns

Intraoperative transcranial Doppler (TCD) monitoring allows us to see intracranial blood flow changes related to endovascular and surgical manipulation in real time. This study evaluates the results of TCD monitoring during transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with flow reversal, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) without shunt, with a shunt (shCEA), and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) with distal filter protection. Patients who underwent carotid artery revascularization with TCD monitoring were included. Patient demographics and medical history were recorded based on medical documentation. Intraoperative TCD, hemodynamics, fluoroscopy images, and surgical manipulation were recorded simultaneously with a 4-channel video recording system, and based on the recordings, the number of high-intensity signals (HITS) and middle cerebral artery (MCA) flow changes were registered. HITS during contrast injections were not included in the analysis due to the high number of artifacts. HITS were compared between the 4 groups, and HITS during lesion crossing/predilation/stent deployment/postdilation were compared between the tfCAS and TCAR groups. Thirty-six patients were involved (mean age 69.5 ± 10.59 years; 24 male) (9 CEA; 11 shCEA; 4 tfCAS; 12 TCAR). Hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, and smoking were frequent in all groups. Median number of HITS for CEA, shCEA, tfCAS, and TCAR were 5 (range: 0-90), 10 (range: 3-72), 197.5 (range: 153-340), and 29 (range: 2-74), respectively. The number of HITS during TCAR was not significantly different compared to CEA or shCEA but significantly lower than in patients receiving tfCAS ( P < .01). Procedural phases of lesion crossing, predilation, stent deployment, and postdilation were associated with significantly higher HITS during tfCAS than TCAR ( P = .002, P = .006, P = .04, P = .006, respectively). The number of embolic events during TCAR is comparable with CEA with and without a shunt and associated with a significantly lower HITS rate than tfCAS with distal filter protection. According to our results, TCAR appears to be a safer alternative to tfCAS.

Navigation of a 6-French guiding sheath into the common carotid artery using a tri-axial catheter system in transbrachial carotid artery stenting

Background and purpose Placement of a large-bore guiding sheath or catheter into the common carotid artery (CCA) is crucial in transbrachial carotid artery stenting (CAS). Herein, we describe technical tips for the navigation of a 6-French guiding sheath into the CCA using a tri-axial catheter system in transbrachial CAS. Materials and methods A total of 27 patients underwent transbrachial CAS. For the right side, a 6-French straight guiding sheath was navigated directly into the CCA using a tri-axial catheter system, with a 4-French Simmons catheter placed through a 6-French straight guiding catheter. For the left side, a 6-French Simmons guiding sheath was navigated into the CCA using a tri-axial catheter system, with a 4-French Simmons catheter placed through a 6-French Simmons guiding catheter. After the placement of a 6-French guiding sheath into the CCA, CAS was performed under distal filter or balloon protection. Results Fifteen patients had a right carotid stenosis and 12 patients had a left carotid stenosis. The 6-French guiding sheath was safely placed with ease and provided adequate stabilization for CAS. All procedures were successfully performed without any complications. Conclusion The use of a tri-axial catheter system for the navigation of a 6-French guiding sheath into the CCA appears safe and efficient, allowing transbrachial CAS, with 6-French guiding sheath stabilization, to be performed without any complication.

Evaluation of Carotid Artery Stenting with Distal Filter Protection Device

Objectives To assess the use of proximal protection devices in consecutive patients as the preferred means of cerebral embolic protection for primary carotid stenting. Methods and Results This was a prospective single-center study to evaluate the technical and clinical success of proximal protection devices as the first choice for embolic protection in symptomatic (≥ 50%) and asymptomatic (≥ 70%) carotid stenosis. Proximal protection devices were used for embolic protection in 115 consecutive patients. No patients were excluded for anatomical reasons. The filter used was of diameters 6 mm in all cases (Emboshield NAV filter device, Abbotts Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. [Lake Bluff, Il]). In all cases, self-expanding closed-cell designed stent was used (X-act closed-cell self-expanding nitinol carotid-tapered stent, Abbotts Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.). Plaque characterization was done by using real-time high-resolution ultrasound (HR USG) equipment (Aloka Prosound Alpha 7 [Chiyoda, Tokyo, Japan]) using high-frequency linear transducers (> 7 MHz). Follow-up duration was 30 days. Mean age was 61.9 ± 8.27 years. There was male predominance observed in study accounting for 73 out of total 115 studied population. Fifty-six of 115 (48.89%) treated stenoses were symptomatic. Technical success was achieved in 115 of 115 (100%) cases. In both the cases, additional distal filter devices were used. Carotid stenting was successful in 115 (100%) lesions. This study observed higher number of debris in symptomatic and high-risk plaques. This study also observed higher sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of updated classification for assessing risk of microembolism (captured debris) (sensitivity 73.91%, specificity 95.65%, positive predictive value [PPV] 91.89%, negative predictive value [NPV] 84.62%, accuracy 86.95%). In our study, minor stroke was seen in three (2.61%) patients within 48 hours, and no adverse events were seen within 48 hours to 1 month. Conclusion Proximal protection is a safe method as the first choice for embolic protection. It can be used with a high rate of technical success.