Key result
Embolic protection devices cause technical complications in ~23% of CAS procedures, most commonly retrieval failures.
Why the study?
The study aimed to evaluate the incidence, risk factors, clinical implications, and rescue maneuvers for technical complications related to embolic protection devices during carotid artery stenting.
What is the incidence of technical complications associated with embolic protection devices during carotid artery stenting?
Cohort (n=158)
No
What is the incidence of technical complications associated with embolic protection devices during carotid artery stenting?
Complicated filter retrieval is a frequent technical complication during CAS with EPDs, but can be safely managed with various stepwise rescue techniques.
EPD technical complications during CAS may require targeted training; leaves open impact on stroke rates in prospective studies.
Background/Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the incidence, risk factors, clinical implications, and rescue maneuvers of technical complications related to embolic protection devices (EPDs) during carotid artery stenting (CAS). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who had undergone CAS with EPDs between April 2018 and March 2024. The incidence and types of technical complication associated with EPDs were assessed. Clinical, angiographical, and procedural factors were analyzed to identify risk factors for the occurrence of EPD-related adverse events. Various rescue techniques for managing adverse events were investigated based on the procedure record. Results: Of the 158 enrolled patients, the rate of EPD-related technical complications was 23.4% (n = 37). Among them, complicated filter retrieval was the most common adverse event (n = 23, 14.6%). Older age, a higher degree of residual stenosis, and the type of the EPD were significant risk factors for complicated filter retrieval (p < 0.05). Although distal thrombus migration requiring thrombectomy was more frequent in patients with complicated filter removal (2.2% vs. 13.0%, p = 0.041), there was no significant increase in postprocedural thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications. When complicated filter retrieval occurred, careful to-and-fro movement of the patients’ neck, such as rotation, or asking them to swallow was tried first in all 23 patients. When these attempts failed, manipulation of a curved-tip guiding catheter, the balloon bridge technique, and alternative use of a 5 Fr angiocatheter as a retrieval sheath were sequentially tried, and all filters were successfully retrieved. Conclusions: Complicated filter retrieval was the most common technical complication during CAS. Various rescue techniques for successful filter removal were effective for ensuring safety of CAS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Carotid artery stenosis (n=158). Embolic protection devices during carotid artery stenting was evaluated on EPD-related technical complications. Embolic protection device-related technical complications occurred in 23.4% of patients during carotid artery stenting, with complicated filter retrieval being the most common adverse event.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: