Stenting of ultraembolic hazardous carotid stenotic lesions using the technique of triple antiembolic protection

Abstract

Objective ‒ to develop a technique of triple antiembolic protection with the simultaneous use of proximal antiembolic protection systems, distal antiembolic filters and two-layer micromesh carotid stents for carotid stenting of ultraembolic hazardous carotid stenosis. Evaluate its effectiveness and safety.
Materials and methods. Since 2016, 23 carotid stenting of ultraembolic hazardous carotid stenoses has been performed using the technique of triple antiembolic protection (proximal antiembolic protection systems, distal antiembolic filters and two-layer micromesh carotid stents). All patients had symptomic stenosis: transient ischemic attacks in a certain carotid pool (n = 7), ischemic strokes (n = 16). The age of patients was from 57 to 84 years. Men prevailed among patients (n = 15). Postoperative follow-up included magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain on the first or second day after surgery with T2*, FLAIR and DWI sequences to determine the presence of «fresh» embolic ischemic foci and to exclude hemorrhagic complications. After 6 months, a control clinical examination, computed tomography or MRI of the brain, ultrasound angioscanning of the main arteries of the head were performed.
Results. In all patients the patency of the carotid arteries was completely restored, and in the early postoperative period, no clinical signs of recurrent ischemic brain damage were detected in any of the cases. No signs of plaque prolapse through the stent were detected in any case. A significant amount of atheromatous debris was in 11 cases when aspirated on an external filter. In 3 cases, emboli were also detected in the distal protection filter. This fact indicates that the joint use of distal and proximal antiembolic systems reliably protects against the risk of embolism in such cases. According to MRI on the 1st or 2nd day there were no signs of «fresh» subclinical embolic ischemic foci, as well as hemorrhage. In 20 patients who underwent a follow-up examination, no signs of restenosis in the stent were recorded in any case, as well as repeated ischemic strokes. In 7 cases where the plaque had an ulcer, the ulcer resolved under the stent. Three patients are expected for a follow-up examination. According to the remote survey, these patients do not have new ischemic brain lesions. The effectiveness of the technique of triple antiembolic protection for the treatment of patients with subtotal ultraembolic hazardous carotid stenosis is indicated by the absence of clinical and neuroradiological signs of recurrent ischemic lesions.
Conclusions. The technique of triple antiembolic protection for the treatment of patients with subtotal ultraembolic hazardous carotid stenoses is safe and highly effective. It is the improvement of carotid stenting results in this most dangerous group that gives reason to think about revealing the advantages of carotid stenting over carotid endarterectomy in general.