Carotid artery stenting in unfavorable vascular anatomy: Effect of embolic protection filter use on periprocedural complications.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of embolic protection device (EPD) use on periprocedural complications in patients with carotid artery stenosis with anatomical variations.

METHOD

The study retrospectively evaluated 185 patients who consecutively underwent carotid artery stenting between November 2020 and December 2023. Forty-four patients with difficult anatomical structures, anatomical variations in the common carotid artery (CCA) and internal carotid artery (ICA) (tortuosity, kinking, or coiling), and a CCA-ICA angle of >60 degrees were included in the sample. The patients were divided into two groups according to the use of EPD filters during the procedure and compared in terms of periprocedural events.

RESULTS

Of the 44 patients included in the study, 24 (54.5 %) were male, and the mean age of all patients was 68.7 ± 8.7 years. Comorbidities were present in 93.2 % (n = 41) of the patients. The most common comorbidity was hypertension (n = 32, 72.8 %). The CCA-ICA angle was ≥60 degrees in 45.4 % (n = 20) of all patients. ICA tortuosity was detected in 27.2 % (n = 12) of the patients, ICA kinking in 13.6 % (n = 6), ICA coiling in 6.8 % (n = 3), and CCA tortuosity in 6.8 % (n = 3). Procedure-related periprocedural events developed in 38.6 % (n = 17) of the patients. Postprocedural mortality occurred in two patients, secondary to myocardial infarction in one and COVID-19 pneumonia in the other. There was no significant difference between the filter and non-filter groups in relation to periprocedural events (p = 0.638). Major stroke did not occur in either group. Minor neurological events occurred in 15 % (n = 3/20) of the patients in the filter group and 16.7 % (n = 4/24) of those in the non-filter group. The incidence of vasospasm was statistically higher in patients using filters compared to those without filters (30 % vs. 0 %; P = 0.005, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Evaluation of vascular anatomy before carotid artery stenting is important to decide on the technical procedure to be applied in the procedure. The use of EPD in unfavorable anatomy does not reduce periprocedural neurological events. Instead, it results in technical difficulties, prolongs the duration of procedure, and leads to arterial vasospasm. Considering the high periprocedural events in this study, carotid endarterectomy may be a better alternative to endovascular treatment in patients with unfavorable carotid artery anatomy.