Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2006 Aug;13(4):436-42.
doi: 10.1583/05-1804MR.1.

Transcranial Doppler monitoring during stenting of the carotid bifurcation: evaluation of two different distal protection devices in preventing embolization

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Transcranial Doppler monitoring during stenting of the carotid bifurcation: evaluation of two different distal protection devices in preventing embolization

Paolo Rubartelli et al. J Endovasc Ther. 2006 Aug.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of 2 emboli protection devices in preventing embolization during carotid artery stenting (CAS).

Methods: The GuardWire distal occlusion system (n=19) and the distal FilterWire EX (n=12) were compared in 31 consecutive patients (24 men; mean age 71+/-10 years) monitored with transcranial Doppler for microembolic signals before, during, and after CAS. The choice of the protection device was based on availability and on the patency of the contralateral carotid artery.

Results: The baseline characteristics were similar in the patients treated under protection from either device. Placement and retrieval of the protection device, stenting, and postdilation were technically successful in all patients. Two patients suffered a transient ischemic attack shortly after the procedure; no other adverse cardiovascular events occurred at 30 days. Compared to the GuardWire, the use of the FilterWire was associated with more microembolic signals during stent deployment (77.4+/-33.5 versus 1.07+/-1.94, p<0.0001), postdilation (63.9+/-21.0 versus 2.06+/-2.58, p<0.0001), and retrieval of the protection device (21.4+/-15.4 versus 10.9+/-8.3, p=0.051). Consequently, the total amount of microembolic signals during the procedure was higher when the filter device was employed (183.0+/-42.1 versus 31.7+/-12.0, p<0.0001).

Conclusion: The distal occlusion device appears to be more effective than the filter in reducing distal embolization detected by transcranial Doppler monitoring.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources