Author + information
- Ersan Tatlı1,
- Ali Buturak2,
- Emir Doğan1,
- Mustafa Alkan1,
- Murat Sayın3,
- Mustafa Yılmaztepe1 and
- Selçuk Atakay4
The aim of this study was to compare the periprocedural and clinical outcomes after carotid artery stenting (CAS) with proximal protection devices versus with distal protection devices.
Patients with internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis undergoing CAS with cerebral embolic protection were randomly assigned to proximal balloon occlusion or distal filter protection. Adverse events were defined as death, major stroke, minor stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA) and myocardial infarction (MI). Periprocedural and 30 days adverse events and ICA vasospasm rates were compared between the two embolic protection groups.
88 consecutive patients were randomized; 48 patients with proximal protection (mean age 68.8±13.6, 66% male) and 40 patients with distal protection device (mean age 65.4±12.3, 70% male). There was no significant difference in periprocedural and 30 days adverse event rates between the two groups (p>0.05). However, the incidence of periprocedural ICA vasospasm (23%) in distal filter protection group was higher (p=0.019) than the observed incidence (2%) in proximal balloon occlusion group.
There was no difference between the clinical periprocedural and 30 days adverse event rates of distal filter and proximal balloon protection systems. However, distal filter protection systems revealed higher incidences of periprocedural ICA vasospasm.