Li Jiahui, Bayraktar Esref Alperen, Bilgin Cem, Liu Yang, Senol Yigit Can, Cortese Jonathan, Kadirvel Ramanathan, Brinjikji Waleed, Kallmes David F
From the Department of Radiology (J.L., E.A.B., C.B., J.C., R.K., W.B., D.F.K.), Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota.
Stroke Research (J.L.), Vall d'Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2025 Aug 1;46(8):1603-1608. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A8664.
Proximal protection devices, such as TransCarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR), aim to yield better outcomes in carotid artery stent placement (CAS) than distal protection devices by preventing plaque embolization to the brain. However, transfemoral catheters may not fully reverse flow from the external carotid artery (ECA) to the ICA. We assess a new balloon-sheath device, Femoral Flow Reversal Access for Carotid Artery Stent placement (FFRACAS), for this purpose.
The FFRACAS prototype (inner diameter [ID] = 0.117 inches; L = 80 cm) was compared with TCAR (ID = 0.104 inches, L = 30 cm) and Mo.Ma (ID = 0.083 inches, L = 90 cm) in a pulsatile flow model with blood simulant at 800 mL/min. Mo.Ma was used according to labeled instructions, with both CCA and ECA balloon inflation, without CCA-femoral vein shunt placement, and in an off-label fashion with single balloon occlusion in the CCA and shunt. Flow rates of the ICA, ECA, and shunt, when applicable, were monitored during CAS stages: CCA flow arrest, shunt activation, and stent delivery. Experiments were conducted under 2 ECA inflow conditions (-10 and -20 mL/min). Statistical comparison of ICA flow rates was conducted by using ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests.
The on-label use of Mo.Ma maintained retrograde ICA flow (-0.3 mL/min) throughout CAS. On shunt activation, TCAR and FFRACAS reversed ICA flow similarly under low ECA inflow (ICA = -5.10 mL/min versus -4.83 mL/min; = .349), but neither achieved ICA flow reversal under high ECA inflow or during stent delivery. Mo.Ma off-label use failed to reverse ICA flow.
FFRACAS presents a potential alternative to TCAR, achieving similar degrees of flow reversal from a transfemoral approach to that achieved with the transcarotid approach. The Mo.Ma system reliably prevents anterograde flow in ICA during CAS.
近端保护装置,如经颈动脉血管重建术(TCAR),旨在通过防止斑块栓塞至脑部,在颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)中产生比远端保护装置更好的效果。然而,经股动脉导管可能无法完全逆转从颈外动脉(ECA)到颈内动脉(ICA)的血流。为此,我们评估一种新型球囊鞘装置,即用于颈动脉支架置入的股动脉血流逆转通路(FFRACAS)。
在一个以800 mL/min血液模拟物的脉动血流模型中,将FFRACAS原型(内径[ID]=0.117英寸;长度[L]=80 cm)与TCAR(ID = 0.104英寸,L = 30 cm)和Mo.Ma(ID = 0.083英寸,L = 90 cm)进行比较。Mo.Ma按照标签说明使用,同时对颈总动脉(CCA)和ECA球囊进行充气,不放置CCA - 股静脉分流装置,并且以非标签方式在CCA中进行单球囊闭塞和分流。在CAS的各个阶段(CCA血流阻断、分流激活和支架输送)监测ICA、ECA和分流(如适用)的流速。实验在两种ECA流入条件(-10和-20 mL/min)下进行。通过使用方差分析(ANOVA)和Tukey事后检验对ICA流速进行统计学比较。
按照标签使用Mo.Ma在整个CAS过程中维持ICA逆行血流(-0.3 mL/min)。在分流激活时,在低ECA流入情况下,TCAR和FFRACAS使ICA血流逆转的情况相似(ICA = -5.10 mL/min对 -4.83 mL/min;P = 0.349),但在高ECA流入或支架输送过程中两者均未实现ICA血流逆转。Mo.Ma的非标签使用未能逆转ICA血流。
FFRACAS是TCAR的一种潜在替代方案,通过经股动脉途径实现的血流逆转程度与经颈动脉途径相似。Mo.Ma系统在CAS期间可靠地防止ICA的顺行血流。