Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_3609_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
25 Carotid Artery Stenting: Studies, Indications, andPre-interventional Workup
https://t.me/medicina_free
255
data versus clinical data to evaluate carotid endarterectomy and
carotid stenting. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58:412–9.
7. Chaer RA, Makaroun MS. Current indications for carotid
angioplasty and stenting. Perspect Vasc Surg Endovasc Ther.
2008;20:239–44.
8. Veith FJ, Amor M, Ohki T, Beebe HG, Bell PR, Bolia A, Bergeron
P, Connors JJ 3rd, Diethrich EB, Ferguson RD, Henry M, Hobson
RW 2nd, Hopkins LN, Katzen BT, Matthias K, Roubin GS, Theron
J, Wholey MH, Yadav SS. Current status of carotid bifurcation
angioplasty and stenting based on a consensus of opinion leaders. J
Vasc Surg. 2001;33:S111–6.
9. Hobson RW 2nd, Howard VJ, Roubin GS, Brott TG, Ferguson
RD, Popma JJ, Graham DL, Howard G.Carotid artery stenting is
associated with increased complications in octogenarians: 30-day
stroke and death rates in the CREST lead-in phase. J Vasc Surg.
2004;40:1106–11.
10. Stanziale SF, Marone LK, Boules TN, Brimmeier JA, Hill K,
Makaroun MS, Wholey MH.Carotid artery stenting in octogenarians is associated with increased adverse outcomes. J Vasc Surg.
2006;43:297–304.
11. Gray WA, Yadav JS, Verta P, Scicli A, Fairman R, Wholey M,
Hopkins LN, Atkinson R, Raabe R, Barnwell S, Green R. The
CAPTURE registry: results of carotid stenting with embolic protection in the post approval setting. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv.
2007;69:341–8.
12. Roubin GS, New G, Iyer SS, Vitek JJ, Al-Mubarak N, Liu MW,
Yadav J, Gomez C, Kuntz RE.Immediate and late clinical outcomes of carotid artery stenting in patients with symptomatic and
asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis: a 5-year prospective analysis.
Circulation. 2001;103:532–7.
13. Brott TG, Hobson RW 2nd, Howard G, Roubin GS, Clark WM,
Brooks W, Mackey A, Hill MD, Leimgruber PP, Sheffet AJ,
Howard VJ, Moore WS, Voeks JH, Hopkins LN, Cutlip DE, Cohen
DJ, Popma JJ, Ferguson RD, Cohen SN, Blackshear JL, Silver FL,
Mohr JP, Lal BK, Meschia JF.Stenting versus endarterectomy for
treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:11–23.
14. Brott TG, Howard G, Roubin GS, Meschia JF, Mackey A, Brooks
W, Moore WS, Hill MD, Mantese VA, Clark WM, Timaran CH,
Heck D, Leimgruber PP, Sheffet AJ, Howard VJ, Chaturvedi S, Lal
BK, Voeks JH, R. W. 2nd Hobson, Long-term results of stenting
versus endarterectomy for carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med.
2016;374:1021–31.
15. Gray WA, Hopkins LN, Yadav S, Davis T, Wholey M, Atkinson R,
Cremonesi A, Fairman R, Walker G, Verta P, Popma J, Virmani R,
Cohen DJ.Protected carotid stenting in high-surgical-risk patients:
the ARCHeR results. J Vasc Surg. 2006;44:258–68.
16. Mansour MA, Kang SS, Baker WH, Watson WC, Littooy FN,
Labropoulos N, Greisler HP.Carotid endarterectomy for recurrent
stenosis. J Vasc Surg. 1997;25:877–83.
17. Roseneld K, Matsumura JS, Chaturvedi S, Riles T, Ansel GM,
Metzger DC, Wechsler L, Jaff MR, Gray W. Randomized trial of
stent versus surgery for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. N Engl J
Med. 2016;374:1011–20.
18. Müller MD, Lyrer P, Brown MM, Bonati LH.Carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;2:CD000515.
19. Halliday A, Bulbulia R, Bonati LH, Chester J, Cradduck-Bamford
A, Peto R, Pan H. Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial
(ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy. Lancet (London, England).
2021;398:1065–73.
20. Gurm HS, Yadav JS, Fayad P, Katzen BT, Mishkel GJ, Bajwa TK,
Ansel G, Strickman NE, Wang H, Cohen SA, Massaro JM, Cutlip
DE.Long-term results of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in
high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1572–9.
21. Yadav JS, Wholey MH, Kuntz RE, Fayad P, Katzen BT, Mishkel
GJ, Bajwa TK, Whitlow P, Strickman NE, Jaff MR, Popma JJ,
Snead DB, Cutlip DE, Firth BG, Ouriel K.Protected carotid-artery
stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med.
2004;351:1493–501.
22. Mas J-L, Chatellier G, Beyssen B, Branchereau A, Moulin T,
Becquemin J-P, Larrue V, Lièvre M, Leys D, Bonneville J-F, Watelet
J, Pruvo J-P, Albucher J-F, Viguier A, Piquet P, Garnier P, Viader F,
Touzé E, Giroud M, Hosseini H, Pillet J-C, Favrole P, Neau J-P,
Ducrocq X.Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1660–71.
23. Ringleb PA, Allenberg J, Brückmann H, Eckstein H-H, Fraedrich
G, Hartmann M, Hennerici M, Jansen O, Klein G, Kunze A, Marx
P, Niederkorn K, Schmiedt W, Solymosi L, Stingele R, Zeumer H,
Hacke W. 30 day results from the SPACE trial of stent-protected
angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients:
a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet (London, England).
2006;368:1239–47.
24. Mas J-L, Arquizan C, Calvet D, Viguier A, Albucher J-F, Piquet P,
Garnier P, Viader F, Giroud M, Hosseini H, Hinzelin G, Favrole P,
Hénon H, Neau J-P, Ducrocq X, Padovani R, Milandre L, Rouanet
F, Wolff V, Saudeau D, Mahagne M-H, Sablot D, Amarenco P,
Larrue V, Beyssen B, Leys D, Moulin T, Lièvre M, Chatellier
G. Long-term follow-up study of endarterectomy versus angioplasty in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis trial.
Stroke. 2014;45:2750–6.
25. Arquizan C, Trinquart L, Touboul P-J, Long A, Feasson S, Terriat
B, Gobin-Metteil M-P, Guidolin B, Cohen S, Mas J-L.Restenosis is
more frequent after carotid stenting than after endarterectomy: the
EVA-3S study. Stroke. 2011;42:1015–20.
26. Eckstein H-H, Ringleb P, Allenberg J-R, Berger J, Fraedrich G,
Hacke W, Hennerici M, Stingele R, Fiehler J, Zeumer H, Jansen
O.Results of the stent-protected angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy (SPACE) study to treat symptomatic stenoses at 2 years:
a multinational, prospective, randomised trial. Lancet Neurol.
2008;7:893–902.
27. Eckstein H-H, Reiff T, Ringleb P, Jansen O, Mansmann U, Hacke
W. SPACE-2: a missed opportunity to compare carotid endarterectomy, carotid stenting, and best medical treatment in patients
with asymptomatic carotid Stenoses. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg.
2016;51:761–5.
28. Ederle J, Dobson J, Featherstone RL, Bonati LH, van der Worp HB,
de Borst GJ, Lo TH, Gaines P, Dorman PJ, Macdonald S, Lyrer PA,
Hendriks JM, McCollum C, Nederkoorn PJ, Brown MM.Carotid
artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with
symptomatic carotid stenosis (international carotid stenting
study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet
(London, England). 2010;375:985–97.
29. Mott M, Koroshetz W, Wright CB.CREST-2: identifying the best
method of stroke prevention for carotid artery stenosis: National
Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke organizational
update. Stroke. 2017;48:e130–1.
30. Ederle J, Bonati LH, Dobson J, Featherstone RL, Gaines PA,
Beard JD, Venables GS, Markus HS, Clifton A, Sandercock P,
Brown MM. Endovascular treatment with angioplasty or stenting versus endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis
in the carotid and vertebral artery transluminal angioplasty study
(CAVATAS): long-term follow-up of a randomised trial. Lancet
Neurol. 2009;8:898–907.
31. Alvarez B, Matas M, Ribo M, Maeso J, Yugueros X, AlvarezSabin J.Transcervical carotid stenting with ow reversal is a safe
technique for high-risk patients older than 70 years. J Vasc Surg.
2012;55:978–84.
32. Leal I, Orgaz A, Flores Á, Gil J, Rodríguez R, Peinado J, Criado E,
Doblas M.A diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging- based

256
https://t.me/medicina_free
E. A. Andraska and R. A. Chaer
study of transcervical carotid stenting with ow reversal versus
transfemoral lter protection. J Vasc Surg. 2012;56:1585–90.
33. Kwolek CJ, Jaff MR, Leal JI, Hopkins LN, Shah RM, Hanover TM,
Macdonald S, Cambria RP.Results of the ROADSTER multicenter
trial of transcarotid stenting with dynamic ow reversal. J Vasc
Surg. 2015;62:1227–34.
34. Malas MB, Dakour-Aridi H, Wang GJ, Kashyap VS, Motaganahalli
RL, Eldrup-Jorgensen J, Cronenwett JL, Schermerhorn
ML. Transcarotid artery revascularization versus transfemoral
carotid artery stenting in the society for vascular surgery vascular
quality initiative. J Vasc Surg. 2019;69:92–103.e2.
35. Kashyap VS, Schneider PA, Foteh M, Motaganahalli R, Shah R,
Eckstein H-H, Henao S, LaMuraglia G, Stoner MC, Melton J,
Massop D, Hanover T, Titus J, Moore WS, Rodríguez-Carvajal R,
Malas MB, Arko FR 3rd, Pierce D, Anain P, Oskin T.Early outcomes in the ROADSTER 2 study of transcarotid artery revascularization in patients with signicant carotid artery disease. Stroke.
2020;51:2620–9.
36. Schermerhorn ML, Liang P, Eldrup-Jorgensen J, Cronenwett JL,
Nolan BW, Kashyap VS, Wang GJ, Motaganahalli RL, Malas
MB.Association of transcarotid artery revascularization vs transfemoral carotid artery stenting with stroke or death among patients
with carotid artery stenosis. JAMA. 2019;322:2313–22.
37. Schermerhorn ML, Liang P, Dakour-Aridi H, Kashyap VS,
Wang GJ, Nolan BW, Cronenwett JL, Eldrup-Jorgensen J, Malas
MB.In-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization
and carotid endarterectomy in the Society for Vascular Surgery
Vascular Quality Initiative. J Vasc Surg. 2020;71:87–95.
38. Kashyap VS, King AH, Foteh MI, Janko M, Jim J, Motaganahalli
RL, Apple JM, Bose S, Kumins NH.A multi-institutional analysis
of transcarotid artery revascularization compared to carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg. 2019;70:123–9.
39. Sacco RL, Adams R, Albers G, Alberts MJ, Benavente O, Furie K,
Goldstein LB, Gorelick P, Halperin J, Harbaugh R, Johnston SC,
Katzan I, Kelly-Hayes M, Kenton EJ, Marks M, Schwamm LH,
Tomsick T.Guidelines for prevention of stroke in patients with
ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American
Stroke Association council on stroke: co-sponsored by the council
on. Circulation. 2006;113:e409–49.
40. Lam RC, Lin SC, DeRubertis B, Hynecek R, Kent KC, Faries
PL. The impact of increasing age on anatomic factors affecting
carotid angioplasty and stenting. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45:875–80.
41. Faggioli GL, Ferri M, Freyrie A, Gargiulo M, Fratesi F, Rossi C,
Manzoli L, Stella A.Aortic arch anomalies are associated with
increased risk of neurological events in carotid stent procedures.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2007;33:436–41.
42. Mathur A, Roubin GS, Iyer SS, Piamsonboon C, Liu MW, Gomez
CR, Yadav JS, Chastain HD, Fox LM, Dean LS, Vitek JJ.Predictors
of stroke complicating carotid artery stenting. Circulation.
1998;97:1239–45.
43. Biasi GM, Froio A, Diethrich EB, Deleo G, Galimberti S,
Mingazzini P, Nicolaides AN, Grifn M, Raithel D, Reid DB,
Valsecchi MG.Carotid plaque echolucency increases the risk of
stroke in carotid stenting: the imaging in carotid angioplasty and
risk of stroke (ICAROS) study. Circulation. 2004;110:756–62.
44. Sayeed S, Stanziale SF, Wholey MH, Makaroun MS.Angiographic
lesion characteristics can predict adverse outcomes after carotid
artery stenting. J Vasc Surg. 2008;47:81–7.
45. Bijuklic K, Wandler A, Varnakov Y, Tuebler T, Schofer J. Risk
factors for cerebral embolization after carotid artery stenting with
embolic protection: a diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance
imaging study in 837 consecutive patients. Circ Cardiovasc Interv.
2013;6:311–6.
46. Xu X, Feng Y, Bai X, Ma Y, Wang Y, Chen Y, Yang B, Ling F, Zhang
X, Jiao L.Risk factors for silent new ischemic cerebral lesions following carotid artery stenting. Neuroradiology. 2020;62:1177–84.
47. Bonati LH, Ederle J, McCabe DJH, Dobson J, Featherstone
RL, Gaines PA, Beard JD, Venables GS, Markus HS, Clifton A,
Sandercock P, Brown MM.Long-term risk of carotid restenosis in
patients randomly assigned to endovascular treatment or endarterectomy in the carotid and vertebral artery transluminal angioplasty
study (CAVATAS): long-term follow-up of a randomised trial.
Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:908–17.
48. Kumar R, Batchelder A, Saratzis A, AbuRahma AF, Ringleb P, Lal
BK, Mas JL, Steinbauer M, Naylor AR.Restenosis after carotid
interventions and its relationship with recurrent ipsilateral stroke:
a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc.
2017;53:766–75.
49. Dakour-Aridi H, Faateh M, Kuo P-L, Zarkowsky DS, Beck A,
Malas MB.The vascular quality initiative 30-day stroke/death risk
score calculator after transfemoral carotid artery stenting. J Vasc
Surg. 2020;71:526–34.
50. Macdonald S, Lee R, Williams R, Stansby G.Towards safer carotid
artery stenting: a scoring system for anatomic suitability. Stroke.
2009;40:1698–703.
51. Setacci C, Chisci E, Setacci F, Iacoponi F, de Donato G, Rossi
A.Siena carotid artery stenting score: a risk modelling study for
individual patients. Stroke. 2010;41:1259–65.
52. Wimmer NJ, Yeh RW, Cutlip DE, Mauri L. Risk prediction for
adverse events after carotid artery stenting in higher surgical risk
patients. Stroke. 2012;43:3218–24.
53. Yuo TH, Sidaoui J, Marone LK, Makaroun MS, Chaer
RA. Revascularization of asymptomatic carotid stenosis is not
appropriate in patients on dialysis. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:670–4.
54. Kougias P, Collins R, Pastorek N, Sharath S, Barshes NR,
McCulloch K, Pisimisis G, Berger DH.Comparison of domainspecic cognitive function after carotid endarterectomy and stenting. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:355–61.
55. Altinbas A, van Zandvoort MJE, van den Berg E, Jongen LM,
Algra A, Moll FL, Nederkoorn PJ, Mali WPTM, Bonati LH, Brown
MM, Kappelle LJ, van der Worp HB.Cognition after carotid endarterectomy or stenting: a randomized comparison. Neurology.
2011;77:1084–90.
56. Rockman C, Caso V, Schneider PA. Carotid interventions for
women: the hazards and benets. Stroke. 2022;53:611–23.
57. Krejza J, Arkuszewski M, Kasner SE, Weigele J, Ustymowicz A,
Hurst RW, Cucchiara BL, Messe SR.Carotid artery diameter in
men and women and the relation to body and neck size. Stroke.
2006;37:1103–5.
58. Faigle R, Cooper LA, Gottesman RF.Lower carotid revascularization rates after stroke in racial/ethnic minority-serving US hospitals. Neurology. 2019;92:e2653–60.
59. Cohen BD, Zeymo A, Bouchard M, McDermott J, Shara NM,
Sellke FW, Sodha N, Al-Refaie WB, Ehsan A.Increased access to
cardiac surgery did not improve outcomes: early look into medicaid expansion. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021;114:1637. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.09.025.
60. Vogel TR, Kruse RL, Kim RJ, Dombrovskiy VY.Racial and socioeconomic disparities after carotid procedures. Vasc Endovasc Surg.
2018;52:330–4.
61. Mas JL, Chatellier G, Beyssen B.Carotid angioplasty and stenting
with and without cerebral protection: clinical alert from the endarterectomy versus angioplasty in patients with symptomatic severe
carotid stenosis (EVA-3S) trial. Stroke. 2004;35:e18–20.
62. Reimers B, Schlüter M, Castriota F, Tübler T, Corvaja N, Cernetti
C, Manetti R, Picciolo A, Liistro F, Di Mario C, Cremonesi A,
Schofer J, Colombo A. Routine use of cerebral protection during carotid artery stenting: results of a multicenter registry of 753
patients. Am J Med. 2004;116:217–22.

25 Carotid Artery Stenting: Studies, Indications, andPre-interventional Workup
https://t.me/medicina_free
257
63. Park KY, Kim DI, Kim BM, Nam HS, Kim YD, Heo JH, Kim
DJ.Incidence of embolism associated with carotid artery stenting:
open-cell versus closed-cell stents. J Neurosurg. 2013;119:642–7.
64. Mukherjee D, Collins DT, Liu C, Ha N, Jim J.The study of transcarotid artery revascularization under local versus general anesthesia
with results from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality
Initiative. Vascular. 2020;28:784–93.
65. Ziapour B, Schermerhorn ML, Iafrati MD, Suarez LB,
TourSavadkohi S, Salehi P.A systematic review and meta-analysis
of predilation and postdilation in transfemoral carotid artery stenting. J Vasc Surg. 2020;72:346–355.e1.

Technique andComplications
https://t.me/medicina_free
ofTransfemoral Stenting
ChristosKarkos andThomasKalogirou
26
Case Presentation
A 68-year-old female was referred by her family doctor for
vascular surgical opinion with the diagnosis of symptomatic
high-grade carotid stenosis. She had suffered two episodes of
right amaurosis fugax over the previous month, and a carotid
color ow duplex scan revealed a 70–80% stenosis at the
origin of the right internal carotid artery (ICA). Past medical
history included hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and
cardiac arrhythmia. She was on treatment with ramipril,
hydrochlorothiazide, simvastatin, bisoprolol, and ecainide.
Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) of the extracranial
carotid arteries conrmed the presence of signicant stenosis
(>70%) at the origin of the right ICA.The left carotid bifurcation and the vertebral arteries had no signicant atherosclerotic disease. Brain magnetic resonance imaging was
normal. She was started on Aspirin 100mg once daily and
was offered a carotid operation for stroke prophylaxis. Both
carotid endarterectomy and stenting options were discussed
in detail.
Continued at page 269
Introduction
Since its early inception in the 1990s, carotid artery stenting
(CAS) has evolved rapidly from a rudimentary angioplasty
technique to a sophisticated endovascular procedure. Despite
the technical advances, the role of CAS in stroke prophylaxis
remains controversial, the main reason being the higher rates
of neurologic adverse events when compared to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Current clinical practice guidelines
favor CEA as the standard of care for most patients with
carotid stenosis, whereas CAS can be safely offered as an
alternative to CEA in younger patients (<70 years) with
C. Karkos (*) · T. Kalogirou
Vascular Unit, 5th Department of Surgery, Hippocratio Hospital,
Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
Thessaloniki, Greece
symptomatic carotid stenosis (Table26.1) [1–4]. The key for
a successful CAS service is to improve the periprocedural
results by reducing both the incidence and the consequences
of its complications. The aim of this chapter is, rst, to
describe the technical steps of a standard transfemoral CAS
procedure and, second, to summarize the most common
complications, focusing on how to prevent and manage them.
Table 26.1
CAS in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with signicant carotid
stenosis [1–3]. ESVS European Society for Vascular and Endovascular
Surgery; SVS Society for Vascular Surgery; ESO European Stroke
Organization; TF-CAS transfemoral CAS; TIA transient ischemic attack
Society Recommendation
ESVS
2023
ESVS
2023
SVS
2021
ESO
2021
ESO
2021
Latest recommendations regarding the use of CEA and
(A) Symptomatic patients
For patients aged ≥70years who have
experienced a carotid territory TIA or
ischemic stroke within the preceding
6months in association with a 50–99%
carotid stenosis, it is recommended that
they should be treated by CEA, rather
than CAS
For patients aged <70years who have
experienced a carotid territory TIA or
ischemic stroke within the preceding
6months in association with a 50–99%
carotid stenosis, CAS may be
considered an alternative to CEA,
provided the documented 30-day risk of
death/stroke is <6%
We recommend CEA over TF-CAS in
low- and standard-risk patients with
>50% symptomatic carotid artery
stenosis
In patients with symptomatic carotid
artery stenosis requiring
revascularization, we recommend CEA
as the treatment of choice
In patients with symptomatic carotid
stenosis <70years old requiring
revascularization, we suggest that CAS
may be considered as an alternative to
CEA
Class: I
Level: A
Class: IIb
Level: B
Grade: 1
Quality: A
Strength: Strong
Quality:
Moderate
Strength: Weak
Quality: Low
(continued)
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
G. Geroulakos et al. (eds.), Mastering Endovascular Techniques, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42735-0_26
259

260
https://t.me/medicina_free
C. Karkos and T. Kalogirou
Table 26.1 (continued)
Society Recommendation
(B) Asymptomatic patients
ESVS
2023
ESVS
2023
ESVS
2023
SVS
2021
ESO
2021
ESO
2021
ESO
2021
For average-surgical-risk patients with
an asymptomatic 60–99% stenosis,
CEA should be considered in the
presence of one or more imaging or
clinical characteristics that may be
associated with an increased risk of late
stroke, provided 30-day stroke/death
rates are <3% and patient life
expectancy exceeds 5years
For average-surgical-risk patients with
an asymptomatic 60–99% stenosis in
the presence of one or more imaging or
clinical characteristics that may be
associated with an increased risk of late
stroke, CAS may be an alternative to
CEA, provided 30-day stroke/death
rates are <3% and patient life
expectancy exceeds 5years
For asymptomatic patients deemed by
the multidisciplinary team to be “high
risk for surgery” and who have an
asymptomatic 60–99% stenosis in the
presence of one or more imaging/
clinical characteristics that may be
associated with an increased risk of late
stroke on best medical therapy, CAS
may be considered provided anatomy is
favorable, 30-day death/stroke rates are
<3%, and patient life expectancy
exceeds 5years
In low-surgical-risk patients with
asymptomatic carotid bifurcation
atherosclerosis and stenosis of >70%
(documented by validated duplex
ultrasound or computed tomography
angiography [CTA]/angiography), we
recommend CEA with best medical
therapy over maximal medical therapy
alone for the long-term prevention of
stroke and death
In patients with ≥60% asymptomatic
carotid artery stenosis considered to be
at increased risk of stroke on best
medical therapy alone, we recommend
CEA
In patients with asymptomatic carotid
stenosis, we recommend against CAS as
a routine alternative to best medical
therapy alone
In patients with asymptomatic carotid
stenosis in whom revascularization is
considered to be appropriate, we
suggest CEA as the current treatment of
choice
Class: IIa
Level: B
Class: IIb
Level: B
Class: IIb
Level: B
Grade: 1
Quality: B
Strength: Strong
Quality:
Moderate
Strength: Weak
Quality: Very low
Strength: Weak
Quality:
Moderate
Technique
This is a description of how the standard technique of transfemoral CAS with lter-type distal embolic protection is
performed at the authors’ institution. Undoubtedly, there
will be many other ways of executing the procedure, but this
reects only the authors’ personal preference and experience. Patients are started on dual antiplatelet therapy that
includes aspirin 100mg once a day and clopidogrel 75mg
once a day, preferably for a minimum of 1week prior to the
procedure. The intervention is performed while the patient
is awake without sedation. Consequently, the patient’s neurologic status can be monitored during each step of the procedure. Under local anesthetic inltration with xylocaine
2%, a common femoral artery (CFA) puncture is performed.
If a diagnostic carotid digital subtraction angiogram (DSA)
is needed prior to the CAS procedure, a 5F-11 cm groin
sheath is introduced. Otherwise, if both the aortic arch and
the carotid anatomy have been adequately documented at
previous imaging (CTA, MRA, DSA) and the intention is to
proceed directly to transfemoral CAS, a 7F-11 cm groin
sheath is introduced. Once femoral access is secured, the
patient is anticoagulated with intravenous heparin, usually
5000units or a dose needed to achieve an activated clotting
time of >250s. A 5F diagnostic catheter (often a Headhunter
or Simmons 2) is advanced into the aortic arch with the aid
of a 260cm-long, J-shaped, 0.035-inch hydrophilic coated
guidewire (Terumo Glidewire, Terumo Europe NV). If an
aortic arch DSA is needed, for instance, when severe ostial
stenosis of an arch vessel is suspected or when difculty
accessing the carotid arteries is encountered, this is usually
performed in the left anterior oblique (LAO) projection (30–
50°). Roadmapping can be useful in guiding the cannulation. Depending on the target carotid side, the catheter is
then advanced either through the innominate or through the
left common carotid artery (CCA) into the mid-CCA, and a
diagnostic selective carotid angiogram, including baseline
intracranial runs, is obtained. Normally, we advance a stiff
guidewire into the distal external carotid artery (ECA) and
exchange the diagnostic catheter (and the 5F groin sheath)
for a 7F-11 cm sheath and a 7F, 100-cm long, JR4-type
guiding catheter. Our preferred guiding catheters are the
Launcher (Medtronic) and the MACH1 (Boston Scientic).
In cases of tortuous anatomy, when extra support is needed
for exchanging the diagnostic catheter with the guiding
catheter, a stiffer guidewire may be necessary, such as the
260cm-long, J-tip, Amplatz Superstiff Guidewire (Boston
Scientic). From this point on, all subsequent procedural
steps are executed through this guiding catheter, a technical
approach known as the direct approach to CAS. Other endo-
vascular specialists prefer the telescopic approach, i.e.,
exchanging the diagnostic catheter and groin sheath for a
long introducer sheath (often a 6F, 90-cm-long Super
Arrow-Flex® Sheath, Teleex, Teleex Medical Europe
Ltd.; or 6F, 90-cm-long Destination Guiding sheath, Terumo
Interventional Systems, Terumo Europe NV), which serves
as the working channel.

26 Technique andComplications ofTransfemoral Stenting
https://t.me/medicina_free
261
After positioning the tip of the guiding catheter in the distal CCA and using roadmap guidance, we cross the stenotic
lesion with a distal embolic protection device (EPD). To
facilitate crossing, proper view of the carotid bifurcation and
the lesion itself is mandatory; therefore, multiple oblique
angiography views may help to open up the carotid bifurcation and identify the best working view. Most distal EPDs are
mounted on a 0.014″ shapable wire, and shaping the tip
appropriately to engage the ICA stenosis is helpful. This step
of the procedure is not “protected” and should be done in a
gentle and “atraumatic” manner to avoid distal embolization
[5–7]. Our preferred distal EPDs are the Emboshield NAV6
(Abbott Cardiovascular) and the SpiderFX (EV3). The former is attached to its own wire, over which one can proceed
with the subsequent intervention after removing the lter
delivery catheter. In contrast, introduction and deployment
of the SpiderFX lter are preceded by crossing the lesion
with a separate 0.014-inch guidewire (usually a Nitrex, ev3).
In brief, the SpiderFX lter system comprises a microcatheter with two ends, one green, which serves as a delivery system for the lter, and one blue at the opposite end, which
serves as a lter retrieval catheter at the end of the procedure.
The lter itself is initially parked in the “garage” proximal
(i.e., caudally, closer to the CFA access) to the monorail exit
port of the 40-cm long, green (delivery) segment of the
microcatheter. The lter microcatheter is then advanced over
the Nitrex wire, and once it is in the desired position in the
distal ICA, the Nitrex wire is removed via the monorail exit
port, and the lter is advanced from the “garage” to the delivery microcatheter tip, uncovered and deployed [5, 6]. The
EPD must be deployed in a relatively straight segment of the
distal cervical ICA and at a sufcient distance to allow positioning of the delivery systems for the stents and balloons
[5–8].
The next step is the stent placement. Pre-stenting angioplasty (predilatation) is only performed if the lesion is too
stenotic to cross with the stent. A 3 mm × 20 mm rapid
exchange (RX) cardiology balloon may be necessary to
accomplish this. For the usual carotid lesions involving the
carotid bifurcation and the proximal ICA, tapered selfexpanding stents are recommended. A variety of selfexpanding stents are available which can be categorized as
open, closed, or hybrid according to cell design (Table26.2).
Table 26.2 Characteristics of open-cell, closed-cell, and hybrid design
stents [1]
Open Closed Hybrid
Free cell area Large Small Mid-segment=small,
Strut
interconnections
Flexibility Good Limited Moderate
Plaque coverage Limited Good Good
Few Many Mid-segment=many,
edges=large
edges=few
In general, open-cell stents are more exible and suited for
tortuous anatomy, whereas closed-cell stents are more rigid
and have better plaque coverage. Hybrid cells combine properties from both types (closed cell in the middle and open
cell at the edges). The preferred type of stents at the authors’
institution is the open-cell stent Protégé (ev3), and the
closed-cell stents Xact (Abbott) and Carotid Wallstent
(Boston Scientic) (Table26.3). We tend to use a closed-cell
stent in symptomatic patients or in patients with a friable
plaque, and an open-cell stent for those with a tortuous ICA
that may be less suited to the more rigid closed-cell stent.
Because one stent is not suitable for all lesions, it is advisable to choose an appropriate stent depending on the lesion
characteristics and the clinical status of the patient. Stent
placement is performed under roadmap guidance aiming for
complete lesion coverage, typically spanning the bifurcation.
The DSA run is done prior to the introduction of the stent
Table 26.3 Suggested endovascular materials for the transfemoral
lter-protected CAS. There are several other options, devices, and
materials to use for performing these procedures. The list presented
here is based on our personal preference and institutional experience
Manufacturer Size/length
Wires
Any standard access wire
Glidewire stiff Terumo
Radifocus
Amplatz Superstiff Boston scientic
Nitrex guidewire ev3
Sheaths/introducer sheaths
Any standard access
sheath
Arrow Teleex 6F-90cm
Destination Terumo
Diagnostic catheters/guide catheters
Any standard
angiographic catheter
(headhunter H1,
Simmons 1, 2, or 3)
JR4 MACH1 Boston scientic 7F, 100cm
JR4 launcher Medtronic 7F, 100cm
Balloons
Viatrac 14 plus RX Abbott
Stents
Protégé RX carotid stent
(tapered)
Xact (tapered) Abbott
Carotid Wallstent (tube,
self tapers)
Distal embolic protection device
SpiderFX Medtronic 6mm
Emboshield NAV6 Abbott
Any 5F-11cm, 7F-11cm
interventional
systems
Imager II, Boston
Scientic
cardiovascular
Medtronic 6-8mm×40mm,
cardiovascular
Boston scientic 7mm×40mm,
cardiovascular
0.035″
0.035″, 260cm
0.035″, 260cm
0.014″, 180cm
6F-90cm
0.035″, 5F, 100cm
5mm×20mm,
29cm RX, 135cm
7-10mm×40mm
6-8mm×40mm,
7-9mm×40mm
9mm×40mm
5mm

262
https://t.me/medicina_free
C. Karkos and T. Kalogirou
delivery system in the guiding catheter because contrast
injection with the stent delivery system in place is not possible due to the tight guiding catheter lumen. This is important to keep in mind when treating patients with signicant
tortuosity of the CCA/ICA.In such cases, introduction of the
more rigid carotid stent delivery system may straighten the
tortuous course, signicantly alter the anatomy, and result in
deploying the stent proximal or distal to the intended location and missing the lesion.
If signicant residual stenosis (>30%) exists after the
deployment of the stent, balloon angioplasty (postdilatation)
of the most stenotic portion of the stented area can be performed using a 5mm×20mm RX cardiology balloon (Viatrac
14 Plus, Abbott Cardiovascular). Minor residual stenosis
(<30%) is acceptable since the goal of carotid stenosis treatment should be stabilization of plaque emboli, not restoration
of normal vessel diameter. If the patient’s baseline heart rate is
less than 80/min, we administer intravenously 0.5–1mg atropine prior to balloon ination to avoid the bradycardia induced
by the stimulation of the carotid sinus baroreceptors located at
the CCA bifurcation. Such a bradycardia on balloon ination
may be seen more often in bifurcation lesions and less so when
the carotid lesion is located at the proximal ICA sparing the
bifurcation. Careful attention should be paid to the patient’s
hemodynamics during this maneuver and subsequently. As
there is some evidence that postdilatation may be associated
with increased hemodynamic instability, periprocedural
stroke/death, or clinically silent cerebral ischemia, this step
can be omitted if there is satisfactory stent wall apposition
with no signicant residual stenosis [1].
A control DSA is taken prior to retrieval of the distal EPD to
document a satisfactory angiographic result and blood ow
through the lter. The EPD can then be removed using the dedicated retrieval catheter. It is imperative not to close the lter
with too much force as the embolic material trapped inside the
lter may be squeezed out. A further completion angiogram to
include both the cervical ICA and the intracranial circulation is
performed to evaluate for residual stenosis, exclude vasospasm
or dissection, and evaluate intracranial blood ow. The patient
may be asked to answer simple questions or perform simple
tasks as a basic neurological evaluation prior to access discontinuation. Hemostasis may be obtained with manual compression or a closure device, and the patient is transferred to a
high-dependency ward for overnight monitoring.
Complications
The aim of the procedure is stroke prevention. Nevertheless,
the very same procedure may be complicated with cerebral
ischemic events or other complications. Therefore, if CAS is
to be a meaningful, preventive intervention that benets
carotid patients, these risks should be minimized. As with
CEA, transfemoral CAS outcomes largely depend on the
pre-procedural symptom status, and indicative, real-world
data on stroke/death rates in the modern era are summarized
in Table26.4. Known factors that may forecast an increased
risk of complications can be grouped as clinical, anatomical,
and those related to the operator strategy and experience
(Table26.5). Information listed in Tables 26.4 and 26.5 can
be used when counseling patients for an informed consent
prior to a carotid intervention. In general, complications may
be encountered in each step of the procedure, and these may
involve challenging scenarios, problems, or difculties with
(1) transfemoral access, (2) catheterization of the CCA, and
Table 26.4 Outcomes following transfemoral CAS stratied by preprocedural symptoms. This is a retrospective review of the Vascular
Quality Initiative (VQI) database with data on 9.807 patients undergoing transfemoral CAS [9]
Pre-procedural symptom status In-hospital stroke/death rate
After recent stroke 5.5%
After recent hemispheric TIA 2.4%
After recent ocular TIA 2.8%
Asymptomatic patients 1.4%
Formerly symptomatic patients 3.5%
Table 26.5
CAS
Clinical factors
Symptoms Symptomatic patients fare worse after CAS
Age CAS is associated with a higher risk of stroke/
Gender (female) Periprocedural risk of events may be higher in
Cerebrovascular
reserve (CVR)
Anatomical factors
Difcult femoral
arterial access
Difcult arch,
CCA/ICA
angulation, or
tortuosity
ICA/CCA degree
of stenosis
Predictive factors that are known to impact outcomes of
compared to asymptomatic ones. Periprocedural
neurologic complication rates vary depending
on the type of presenting symptoms (none,
ocular, TIA, stroke) and time elapsed from the
index event [3, 9]
death in patients ≥70years, possibly due to
increased atherosclerotic burden, aortic arch
calcication, changes in vascular anatomy, and
increasing plaque vulnerability [1, 3]
women who have CAS than those who have
CEA [10]
Exhausted CVR is associated with an increased
risk of periprocedural neurologic complications
[11]
Preexisting peripheral arterial disease (and, in
particular, CFA disease, tortuosity, or disease of
both iliac arteries and distal aorta) may
predispose to complications. Consider
alternative access, or CEA
Type III arch, bovine arch, and angulation of the
ICA or CCA are all associated with an increased
risk of periprocedural complications. The risk of
adverse anatomy increases with age [12–15]
Extensive ICA or CCA stenosis narrows
working space and risks potential intima
damage and atheroemboli, while impeding safe
access and treatment [15]. A very tight stenosis
may rst require predilatation with a balloon to
allow safe passage and deployment of an EPD
prior to CAS.Correction of severe stenotic
lesions may also lead to increased risk of
hyperperfusion injury post-CAS [16]
(continued)

26 Technique andComplications ofTransfemoral Stenting
https://t.me/medicina_free
263
Table 26.5 (continued)
Lesion anatomy Carotid plaque characteristics may predict CAS
Factors related to operator strategy and experience
Learning curve An arbitrary number of 30 carotid angiograms
Choice of embolic
protection
Stent design Stent choice (open-cell vs. closed-cell) should
Case selection Appropriate patient selection is critical for
outcomes. Concentric and calcied plaques pose
intraluminal access and treatment barriers and
have been reported to be associated with a
negative outcome. There is evidence that soft
plaques with low echogenicity scores may be
associated with signicant neurologic adverse
events [15, 17]
and 25 CAS procedures has been suggested as
the recommended prerequisite for credentialing
in CAS [18, 19]. The 2023 ESVS carotid
guidelines suggest that “for patients undergoing
transfemoral CAS, at least 12 CAS procedures
per year (per operator) may be considered an
appropriate operator volume threshold in order
to maintain optimal outcomes (class IIb, level
C)” [1]
Distal ltration vs. ow-reversal EPDs [1]
be tailored to the carotid anatomy and plaque
characteristics [1]
success. All the factors summarized in this table
should be taken into account when selecting
cases for CAS and planning the stenting strategy
(3) treatment of the lesion. Familiarity with the fundamentals
of the procedure, careful pre-procedural study of the patient’s
specic anatomy and disease, adequate planning, and meticulous endovascular technique are all equally important
parameters to avoid such complications.
Access Site Complications
may not be possible in some. A signicant stenosis of the
common femoral, external iliac, or common iliac artery may
be treated with angioplasty or stenting to allow insertion of
the large guide catheters needed for CAS. If a complete aortoiliac occlusion is encountered, it may still be possible to
combine recanalization of an aortoiliac occlusion with transfemoral CAS. However, this increases the magnitude and
severity of the procedure. An alternative would be opting
either for CEA or for CAS via a transbrachial, transradial, or
transcervical approach (Fig.26.1).
Selective Catheterization oftheCCA
Gaining access to the CCA-ECA can be challenging, and it
leads to technical failure or complications. This step of the
procedure is not “protected,” and approximately 40% of the
major complications during CAS (embolism, dissection)
occur during the selective catheterization phase [20].
Achieving stable guide catheter positioning is of paramount
importance before proceeding with any carotid intervention.
Difculties may arise if the CCA is tortuous, if the angle of
the origin of the brachiocephalic artery or left CCA off the
aortic arch is very acute, or if the aortic arch is diseased or
heavily calcied [5–8]. Distal CCA stenosis or ECA occlusion may pose additional difculties because gaining distal
wire access in the ECA is not feasible. Such lesions may be
negotiated using an Amplatz Superstiff guidewire with a
shorter, 1-cm-long soft tip (instead of the longer, 7-cm-long
soft tip). The J-shaped end of the wire is positioned just
proximal to the CCA stenosis or proximal to the carotid
lesion (in ECA occlusion), and a standard exchange is performed. Care must be taken not to allow the J-wire to
As for all transfemoral arterial procedures, signicant complications can occur related to femoral access. These include
bleeding, local or retroperitoneal hematoma, pseudoaneurysm formation, perforation, dissection, thrombosis, and distal embolization, all problems that may necessitate open
surgery or endovascular repair. Puncture site complications
can be minimized by careful, anterior wall puncture of the
CFA, and this can be achieved even more consistently when
needle puncture is ultrasound guided. Safe puncture site closure after sheath removal can be done with manual compression by experienced personnel under additional local
anesthesia. Other centers routinely apply a vascular closure
device at the end of the procedure to achieve immediate
hemostasis. This allows earlier ambulation with the added
benet of counteracting the activated carotid sinus reex and
the occasionally observed post-procedural hypotension.
Since many patients with carotid stenosis also have
peripheral arterial disease, a simple transfemoral approach
Fig. 26.1 Transcervical CAS approach in a patient with aortoiliac
occlusion

264
https://t.me/medicina_free
C. Karkos and T. Kalogirou
migrate distally and potentially disturb the plaque.
Alternatively, telescoping an extra-long (125 cm), 5F
Headhunter or Vitek diagnostic catheter through the 6F
guiding sheath or the guiding catheter may solve this difculty [6, 7]. An alternative trick is a direct approach using
the 8F Simmons 2 guiding catheter, which is relatively stiff,
large, and stable and usually will not herniate into the aortic
arch as the stent delivery system is advanced [7]. If the risks
of the extensive manipulations seem too high, it is prefera-
Fig. 26.2 Left CAS via a
right transbrachial approach.
Initial transfemoral DSA (a)
shows a type III arch with the
bovine origin of the left CCA
(white arrow), which then
assumes a tortuous course.
After failing to achieve stable
positioning of the guiding
catheter in the left CCA, we
changed our approach to a
right transbrachial approach
using a 6F-45cm Arrow
sheath (b–d). A type III arch
is when the vertical distance
between the brachiocephalic
artery origin (dotted line) and
top of the arch (solid line)
exceeds two left CCA
diameters
a
ble not to persist with a transfemoral approach and opt for
an alternative route (CEA, transbrachial, or direct CAS)
(Fig.26.2).
Treatment oftheLesion
Complications may occur during each step of the treatment
of the ICA lesion, i.e., lesion crossing, EPD placement and
b
cd

26 Technique andComplications ofTransfemoral Stenting
https://t.me/medicina_free
265
deployment, predilatation, stent deployment, postdilatation,
and EPD retrieval.
Crossing theCarotid Lesion andDeploying
theEPD
Crossing a tight and irregular carotid stenosis may be occasionally difcult, and it is important not to force the wire or
the distal EPD across the lesion since this can result in procedural complications, including ICA distal embolism or
dissection. When there is difculty to gain access to a tiny
angulated residual lumen, one may use a 125-cm-long
5F-angled multipurpose diagnostic catheter or microcatheters, such as a microcatheter with distal curve or a steerable
microcatheter [7]. These can be inserted through the guiding
catheter or sheath and help provide the proper angle to
engage the lesion. If crossing the stenosis is not possible, an
alternative in this situation is to use proximal instead of distal
embolic protection. In cases where a 0.014-inch guidewire
can be threaded distally but the distal, lter-based EPD cannot pass through the tight stenosis, lesion predilatation with
a 2mm or 2.5mm RX balloon can be employed to allow safe
passage of the EPD.However, this maneuver is done without
cerebral protection. Another difculty precluding safe placement of a distal EPD is the presence of unfavorable ICA
anatomy. A severe “kink,” tortuosity, or a distal, tandem stenosis may prevent navigation of these devices into a safe segment of the distal ICA. In such situations, one might also
consider continuing the intervention using a proximal EPD
or performing the procedure without distal embolic protec-
tion at all. However, the risk of the latter should be weighed
against other options, such as CAS with proximal embolic
protection or CEA.
Stent Deployment
Complications with accurate stent deployment may arise in
cases of tortuous carotid arteries or when a there is a “kink.”
It is best to avoid a “kink” that lies immediately distal to the
lesion. In these cases, placement of the stent proximal to the
sharp turn in the ICA is optimal. Otherwise, the stent may
accentuate the kink. In this scenario, it is also better to opt for
an open-cell stent, which is more exible, and avoid the
more rigid closed-cell stent (Fig. 26.3) [5, 7, 8]. Another
technical issue that can be encountered during stent deployment is that, occasionally, the stent can move proximally or
distally (“watermelon seeding”), resulting in incomplete
coverage of the lesion, which may require the placement of a
second, overlapping stent [7]. Finally, upon deploying the
stent, occasionally, there might be difculty with the removal
of the stent delivery system. This is more likely to develop if
the stent is deployed across a severe stenosis without previous predilatation, if the stenosis is at a curve, and when the
edges of the stenosis are abrupt, leading to buckling of portions of a stent cell into the lumen [7]. Simple maneuvers
that may solve the problem include (1) changing the position
of the head by turning it right or left or by exing-extending
the neck, (2) trying to resheath the distal end of the stent
deployment catheter, or (3) carefully advancing the guiding
catheter into the stent [7]. Careful uoroscopic observation
ab c
Fig. 26.3 Placement of the distal end stent into kinks and tortuosities
of the ICA should be avoided. In this patient, there is a sharp turn in the
ICA a few centimeters from the carotid bifurcation (a). To avoid exaggerating the sharp turn and creating a kink, the stent was deployed
proximal to this bend (b, c). A exible open-cell (Protégé RX carotid)
stent was preferred over a rigid closed-cell stent for the very same
reason
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
