			Home About us Contact

Distal Protection Devices (distal + protection_device)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Efficacy of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents as Compared to Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention

JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY, Issue 2 2006
Ph.D., WILLIAM W. CHU M.D.
Background: Saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention is associated with a significantly increased rate of periprocedural complications and late clinical and angiographic restenosis. In the contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) era, the comparison of the efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in SVG interventions is currently unknown. We conducted this retrospective analysis to investigate this issue. Methods and Results: Forty-seven patients with 50 SVG lesions who underwent standard percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with SES (SES group) were compared with 42 patients with 45 SVG lesions with PES (PES group). All patients received distal protection devices (DPDs) during the interventions. The in-hospital, 30-day, and 6-month clinical outcomes in both groups were compared. Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced between both groups except for the proximal and mid lesions. There were no deaths or Q-wave myocardial infarctions (MIs) during the index hospitalization. Non-Q-wave MI was similar between the two groups (SES vs PES, 4.3% vs 7.1%, P = 0.55). At 30-day and 6-month follow-ups, all the clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups. There was no subacute thrombosis (SAT) or late thrombosis in either group. The event-free survival at 6 months was also similar between both groups (P = 0.75). Conclusions: The use of DES in patients undergoing SVG intervention with a DPD is clinically safe and feasible. As compared to SES, PES have the same efficacy and clinical outcomes in SVG interventions up to 6 months. [source]

Guidelines for patient selection and performance of carotid artery stenting

ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, Issue 6 2010
The Carotid Stenting Guidelines Committee
Abstract Background:, The endovascular treatment of carotid atherosclerosis with carotid artery stenting (CAS) remains controversial. Carotid endarterectomy remains the benchmark in terms of procedural mortality and morbidity. At present, there are no consensus Australasian guidelines for the safe performance of CAS. Methods:, We applied a modified Delphi consensus method of iterative consultation between the College representatives on the Carotid Stenting Guidelines Committee (CSGC). Results:, Selection of patients suitable for CAS needs careful consideration of clinical and patho-anatomical criteria and cannot be directly extrapolated from clinical indicators for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Randomized controlled trials (including pooled analyses of results) comparing CAS with CEA for treatment of symptomatic stenosis have demonstrated that CAS is more hazardous than CEA. On current evidence, the CGSC therefore recommends that CAS should not be performed in the majority of patients requiring carotid revascularisation. The evidence for CAS in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis who are considered medically high risk is weak, and there is currently no evidence to support CAS as a treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The use of distal protection devices during CAS remains controversial with increased risk of clinically silent stroke. The knowledge requirements for the safe performance of CAS include an understanding of the evidence base from randomized controlled trials, carotid and aortic arch anatomy and pathology, clinical stroke syndromes, the differing treatment options for stroke and carotid atherosclerosis, and recognition and management of periprocedural complications. It is critical that all patients being considered for a carotid intervention have adequate pre-procedural neuro-imaging and an independent, standardized neurological assessment before and after the procedure. Maintenance of proficiency in CAS requires active involvement in surgical/endovascular audit and continuing medical education programs. These standards should apply in the public and private health care settings. Conclusion:, These guidelines represent the consensus of an inter-collegiate committee in order to direct appropriate patient selection and the range of cognitive and technical requirements to perform CAS. Advances in endovascular technologies and the results of randomized controlled trials will guide future revisions of these guidelines. [source]

"Over-and-under" pericardial covered stent with paclitaxel balloon in a saphenous vein graft,

CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, Issue 6 2010
Joanna J. Wykrzykowska MD
Abstract Treatment of vein graft disease remains a challenge in interventional cardiology because of the risk of embolization and no-reflow phenomenon. Currently available distal protection devices have their limitations. The PTFE-covered stents may be well suited for venous graft lesion treatment, but those available commercially to date have poor crossing profiles, and deliverability and high rates of restenosis. We report the first use of over-and-under pericardium-covered stent in combination with drug-eluting balloon to treat venous graft disease. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]

Coronary no-reflow phenomenon: From the experimental laboratory to the cardiac catheterization laboratory,

CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, Issue 7 2008
Shereif H. Rezkalla MD
Abstract Coronary no-reflow occurs commonly during acute percutaneous coronary intervention, particularly in patients with acute myocardial infarction and those with degenerated vein grafts. It is associated with a guarded prognosis, and thus needs to be recognized and treated promptly. The pathophysiology originates during the ischemic phase and is characterized by localized and diffuse capillary swelling and arteriolar endothelial dysfunction. In addition, leukocytes become activated and are attracted to the lumen of the capillaries, exhibit diapedesis and may contribute to cellular and intracellular edema and clogging of vessels. At the moment of perfusion, the sudden rush of leukocytes and distal atheroemboli further contributes to impaired tissue perfusion. Shortening the door-to-balloon time, use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa platelet receptor inhibitors and distal protection devices are predicted to limit the development of no-reflow during percutaneous interventions. Distal intracoronary injection of verapamil, nicardipine, adenosine, and nitroprusside may improve coronary flow in the majority of patients. Hemodynamic support of the patient may be needed in some cases until coronary flow improves. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]

Initial clinical experience with distal protection using the FilterWire in patients undergoing coronary artery and saphenous vein graft percutaneous intervention

CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, Issue 2 2002
Jeffrey J. Popma MD
Abstract Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of saphenous vein grafts (SVG) and native coronary arteries may be associated with embolization of particulate debris into the distal microcirculation. The FilterWire uses a polyurethane filter bag contained on a radiopaque loop to trap embolic debris during native vessel and SVG intervention. The objectives of this study were to assess the feasibility and safety of the FilterWire during PCI and to examine the size and content of the particulate debris captured during SVG and native vessel intervention. Early angiographic, in-hospital, and 30-day clinical outcomes were reviewed in 35 patients with 36 lesions treated with the FilterWire during PCI. Lesions were located in 22 (61%) native coronary arteries and in 14 (39%) SVGs. Multivessel coronary artery disease was present in 75% of patients. Lesions were complex (ACC/AHA complexity B2 or C) in 81% of cases. The FilterWire was successfully delivered and deployed distal to the site of coronary intervention in 92% of lesions, including 95% of native vessels and 82% of SVG lesions. Embolic debris was entrapped in 82% of these cases. The average particulate debris had a mean major axis of 490 ,m (range, 45,3,302 ,m) and minor axis of 226 ,m (range, 33,1,677 ,m). Although reduced flow was common (36.1%) when the FilterWire was in place, there were no sustained episodes of abrupt closure and only one (2.8%) patient developed sustained no-reflow after FilterWire removal. Distal branch vessel embolization was found in four (11.1%) cases. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 5 (14%) of 35 patients treated with the device, although 2 of these patients were evolving an acute myocardial infarction at the time of the procedure; in patients meeting the prospectively defined inclusion criteria, the major adverse cardiac event was 6%. These results suggest that the FilterWire is a feasible and safe method of collecting particulate debris released during SVG and native vessel coronary intervention. Its benefit over conventional therapy and other distal protection devices is currently under study. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2002;57:125,134. © 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]