|
|
||||||||||
|
J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005; 45:1769-1774, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2005.02.067 © 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation |





* Herzzentrum, Kardiologie, Ludwigshafen
Städtisches Klinikum, Kardiologie, München-Bogenhausen
Städtisches Klinikum, Neurologie, Ludwigshafen
Stadtkrankenhaus, Kardiologie, Worms
|| Marienkrankenhaus, Kardiologie, Wesel
¶ Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen Brüder, Kardiologie, Trier
# Klinikum Siloah, Kardiologie, Hannover
** St. Josefs Hospital, Kardiologie, Wiesbaden

Klinikum Lippe-Detmold, Kardiologie, Detmold, Germany
Manuscript received December 16, 2004; revised manuscript received February 12, 2005, accepted February 22, 2005.
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Ralf Zahn, Herzzentrum Ludwigshafen, Dept. of Cardiology, Bremserstrasse 79, D-67063 Ludwigshafen, Germany. (Email: erzahn{at}aol.com).
OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the efficacy of a filter embolic protection device (F-EPD) and a distal occlusive embolic protection device (DO-EPD) in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS).
BACKGROUND: The embolic protection device (EPD) may lower the periprocedural rate of cerebral ischemic events during CAS. However, it is unclear whether there is a difference in effectiveness between the different types of EPD.
METHODS: We analyzed data from the Carotid Artery Stent (CAS) Registry.
RESULTS: From July 1996 to July 2003, 1,734 patients were included in the prospective CAS Registry. Of these patients, 729 patients were treated with an EPD, 553 (75.9%) with F-EPD, and 176 (24.1%) with DO-EPD. Patients treated with DO-EPD were more likely to be treated for symptomatic stenosis (64.5% vs. 53.4%, p = 0.011). The carotid lesions in patients treated under DO-EPD seemed to be more complicated, as expressed by a higher proportion of ulcers (p = 0.035), severe calcification (p = 0.039), a longer lesion length (p = 0.025), and a higher pre-interventional grade of stenosis (p < 0.001). The median duration of the CAS intervention was 30 min in the DO-EPD group, compared with 48 min in the filter group (p < 0.001). No differences in clinical events rate between the two groups of protection devices were observed. Multivariate analysis on the occurrence of the combined end point of in-hospital death or stroke found no difference between filter- and DO-EPD (4 of 176 [2.3%] for DO-EPD vs. 10 of 551 [1.8%] for F-EPD; adjusted odds ratio = 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 4.44; p = 0.958).
CONCLUSIONS: Filter EPD is the currently preferred method of EPD in clinical practice. Both F-EPD and DO-EPD seem to be equally effective during CAS.
| ||||||||||
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
E. Mahmud, J. J. Cavendish, and A. Salami Current Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Disease: Role of Percutaneous Interventional Therapies J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 7, 2007; 50(6): 473 - 490. [Abstract] [Full Text] [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] |
||||
| HOME | SUBSCRIPTIONS | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | CARDIOSOURCE | SEARCH | HELP | FEEDBACK |