This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schmidt, A. Articles by Scheinert, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Schmidt, A. Articles by Scheinert, D.

CLINICAL RESEARCH: INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY

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

Divisionof Clinical and Interventional Angiology, Department of Cardiology, University of Leipzig–Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany

Manuscript received April 30, 2004; accepted August 16, 2004.

^* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Andrej Schmidt, Clinical and Interventional Angiology, Department of Cardiology, University of Leipzig-Heart Center, Strümpellstrasse 39, 04289 Leipzig, Germany (Email: Andrej.Schmidt{at}gmx.de).

OBJECTIVES: 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).

BACKGROUND: 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.

METHODS: 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.

RESULTS: 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).

CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Abbreviations and Acronyms   CAS = carotid artery stenting   CCA = common carotid artery   ECA = external carotid artery   ICA = internal carotid artery   MES = microembolic signals   TCD = transcranial Doppler

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. K. Veeraswamy, B. G. Rubin, L. A. Sanchez, M. A. Curi, P. J Geraghty, J. C. Parodi, and G. A. Sicard Complications of Carotid Artery Stenting Are Largely Preventable: A Retrospective Error Analysis Perspectives in Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, December 1, 2007; 19(4): 403 - 408. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Shilling, B. F. Uretsky, and G. C. Hunter Entrapment of a Cerebral Embolic Protection Device: A Case Report Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, May 1, 2006; 40(3): 229 - 233. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. Asakura, K. Kawaguchi, H. Sakaida, N. Toma, S. Matsushima, K. Kuraishi, H. Tanemura, Y. Miura, M. Maeda, and W. Taki Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in carotid angioplasty and stenting with protection by the reversed carotid arterial flow. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., April 1, 2006; 27(4): 753 - 758. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. C. Lin, R. R. Kolvenbach, and L. Pinter Protected Carotid Artery Stenting and Angioplasty via Transfemoral versus Transcervical Approaches Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, November 1, 2005; 39(6): 499 - 503. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Y. P. Liew and J. R Bartholomew Atheromatous embolization Vascular Medicine, November 1, 2005; 10(4): 309 - 326. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. D. Aronow, M. Shishehbor, D. A. Davis, I. L. Katzan, D. L. Bhatt, C. T. Bajzer, A. Abou-Chebl, K. W. Derk, P. L. Whitlow, and J. S. Yadav Leukocyte Count Predicts Microembolic Doppler Signals During Carotid Stenting: A Link Between Inflammation and Embolization Stroke, September 1, 2005; 36(9): 1910 - 1914. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. C. Parodi Effect of Two Different Neuroprotection Systems on Microembolization During Carotid Artery Stenting J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 19, 2005; 46(2): 382 - 382. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Schmidt, D. Scheinert, and G. Biamino Reply J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 19, 2005; 46(2): 382 - 382. [Full Text] [PDF]