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
Review
. 2017 Apr;58(2):170-177.
doi: 10.23736/S0021-9509.16.09848-7. Epub 2016 Dec 22.

Evidence overview: benefit of cerebral protection devices during carotid artery stenting

Affiliations
Review

Evidence overview: benefit of cerebral protection devices during carotid artery stenting

Jan A Vos. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2017 Apr.

Abstract

Embolic protection devices (EPDs) are often used during carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) to reduce procedural cerebral emboli. This manuscript seeks to present an overview of evidence on EPDs during CAS. There are three categories of EPDs: distal occlusion (DO-EPD), filter (F-EPD) and proximal occlusion (PO-EPD). DO and F-EPDs have the disadvantage that the device has to be advanced through the stenosis, without protection and that the device may damage the distal internal carotid artery (ICA). F-EPDs have the advantage of maintaining antegrade flow throughout the procedure. PO-EPDs occlude the ICA and external carotid artery (ECA) (blocking antegrade flow), but do not require manipulation of the stenosis before protection is established. All devices add to procedural time and costs. Many single-center series and meta-analyses have shown lower incidence of procedural complications and surrogate endpoints when EPDs are used. However, these series are hampered by a serious confounder: protected cases were generally performed later, when institutions had more experience and when newer stents, techniques etc. had become available. Two small randomized trials showed no difference between filter-protected and unprotected procedures in clinical outcome, but found significantly more surrogate endpoints (diffusion-weighted MRI lesions and transcranial Doppler detected micro-emboli) in the protected groups. Comparing between groups of EPDs, some studies slightly favored PO to F-EPDs, while others found no difference. All devices were associated with low numbers of clinical cerebral complications, but frequent surrogate signs of cerebral embolization. In conclusion, all currently available EPDs still result in some degree of cerebral embolization. No solid recommendation for a particular type of EPDs, if any, can be derived from literature.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources