Effect of two different neuroprotection systems on microembolization during carotid artery stenting

• Published in: Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2004-11, Vol.44 (10), p.1966-1969
• Main Authors: Schmidt, Andrej, Diederich, Klaus-Werner, Scheinert, Susanne, Bräunlich, Sven, Olenburger, Tatjana, Biamino, Giancarlo, Schuler, Gerhard, Scheinert, Dierk
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Biological and medical sciences; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects; Cardiology; Cardiovascular disease; Carotid Stenosis - surgery; Catheterization - instrumentation; Catheters; Cerebral Angiography; Diseases of the cardiovascular system; Female; Humans; Intracranial Embolism - diagnostic imaging; Intracranial Embolism - prevention & control; Male; Medical sciences; Neurology; Patients; Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects); Stents; Stents - adverse effects; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography, Doppler, Transcranial; Vascular diseases and vascular malformations of the nervous system
• ISSN: 0735-1097; 1558-3597
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.08.049

This study sought to compare the efficacy of two different cerebral protection systems for the prevention of embolization during carotid artery stenting (CAS) using a transcranial Doppler (TCD) monitoring with the detection of microembolic signals (MES). Despite the introduction of cerebral protection systems, neurologic complications during CAS cannot completely be prevented. Transcranial Doppler and detection of MES may aid in assessing the efficacy of different neuroprotection systems. A total of 42 patients with internal carotid artery stenoses were treated by CAS using either a filter (E.P.I. FilterWire, Boston Scientific Corp., Santa Clara, California) (n = 21) or a proximal endovascular clamping device (MO.MA system, Invatec s.r.l., Roncadelle, Italy) (n = 21). Microembolic signal counts were compared during five phases: placement of the protection device, passage of the stenosis, stent deployment, balloon dilation, and retrieval of the protection device. There were no significant differences in clinical or angiographic outcomes between the two groups. Compared to the filter device, the MO.MA system significantly reduced MES counts during the procedural phases of wire passage of the stenosis, stent deployment, balloon dilation, and in total (MES counts for the filter device were 25 ± 22, 73 ± 49, 70 ± 31, and 196 ± 84 during the three phases and in total, MES counts for the MO.MA system were 1.8 ± 3.2, 11 ± 19, 12 ± 21, and 57 ± 41, respectively; p < 0.0001). In comparison to a filter device the MO.MA system led to significantly lower MES counts during CAS. The detection of MES by TCD may facilitate the evaluation and comparison of different neuroprotection systems.