Purpose: To determine any difference between bare metal stents (BMS) and balloon-expandable covered stents in the treatment of innominate artery atheromatous lesions. Materials and Methods: A multicenter retrospective study involving 13 university hospitals in France collected 93 patients (mean age 63.2±11.1 years; 57 men) treated over a 10-year period. All patients had systolic blood pressure asymmetry >15 mm Hg and were either asymptomatic (39, 42%) or had carotid (20, 22%), vertebrobasilar (24, 26%), and/or brachial (20, 22%) symptoms. Innominate artery stenosis ranged from 50% to 70% in 4 (4%) symptomatic cases and between 70% and 90% in 52 (56%) cases; 28 (30%) lesions were preocclusive and 8 (9%) were occluded. One (1%) severely symptomatic patient had a <50% stenosis. Demographic characteristics, operative indications, and procedure details were compared between the covered (36, 39%) and BMS (57, 61%) groups. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine relative risks of restenosis and reinterventions [reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI)]. Results: The endovascular procedures were performed mainly via retrograde carotid access (75, 81%). Perioperative strokes occurred in 4 (4.3%) patients. During the mean 34.5±31.2–month follow-up, 30 (32%) restenoses were detected and 13 (20%) reinterventions were performed. Relative risks were 6.9 (95% CI 2.2 to 22.2, p=0.001) for restenosis and 14.6 (95% CI 1.8 to 120.8, p=0.004) for reinterventions between BMS and covered stents. The severity of the treated lesions had no influence on the results. Conclusion: Patients treated with BMS for innominate artery stenosis have more frequent restenoses and reinterventions than patients treated with covered stents.
MelliereDBecqueminJPBenyahiaNEet al. Atherosclerotic disease of the innominate artery: current management and results. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 1992;33:319–323.
3.
CherryKJJrMcCulloughJLHallettJWJret al. Technical principles of direct innominate artery revascularization: a comparison of endarterectomy and bypass grafts. J Vasc Surg. 1989;9:718–723.
4.
MotarjemeAGordonGI.Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of the brachiocephalic vessels: guidelines for therapy. Int Angiol. 1993;12:260–269.
5.
CriadoFJQueralLA.The role of angioplasty and stenting in the treatment of occlusive lesions of supra-aortic trunks. J Mal Vasc. 1996;21(suppl A):132–138.
6.
DorrosGLewinRFJamnadasPet al. Peripheral transluminal angioplasty of the subclavian and innominate arteries utilizing the brachial approach: acute outcome and follow-up. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1990;19:71–76.
7.
InsallRLLambertDChamberlainJet al. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of the innominate, subclavian, and axillary arteries. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1990;4:591–595.
8.
ModaraiBAliTDouradoRet al. Comparison of extra-anatomic bypass grafting with angioplasty for atherosclerotic disease of the supra-aortic trunks. Br J Surg. 2004;91:1453–1457.
9.
PalchikEBakkenAMWolfordHYet al. Evolving strategies in treatment of isolated symptomatic innominate artery disease. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2008;42:440–445.
10.
HuttlKNemesBSimonffyAet al. Angioplasty of the innominate artery in 89 patients: experience over 19 years. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2002;25:109–114.
11.
van HattumESde VriesJPLalezariFet al. Angioplasty with or without stent placement in the brachiocephalic artery: feasible and durable? A retrospective cohort study. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007;18:1088–1093.
12.
PaukovitsTMLukacsLBercziVet al. Percutaneous endovascular treatment of innominate artery lesions: a single-centre experience on 77 lesions. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;40:35–43.
13.
de BorstGJHazenbergCE.How should I treat a patient with a tandem carotid artery atherosclerotic stenosis involving the internal carotid artery and the innominate/proximal common carotid artery?Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;50:257–258.
14.
HadjipetrouPCoxSPiemonteTet al. Percutaneous revascularization of atherosclerotic obstruction of aortic arch vessels. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:1238–1245.
15.
BrountzosENPetersenBBinkertCet al. Primary stenting of subclavian and innominate artery occlusive disease: a single center’s experience. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2004;27:616–623.
16.
SullivanTMGrayBHBacharachJMet al. Angioplasty and primary stenting of the subclavian, innominate, and common carotid arteries in 83 patients. J Vasc Surg. 1998;28:1059–1065.
17.
PetersonBGResnickSAMoraschMDet al. Aortic arch vessel stenting: a single-center experience using cerebral protection. Arch Surg. 2006;141:560–564.
18.
NaylorARRiccoJBde BorstGJet al. Management of atherosclerotic carotid and vertebral artery disease: 2017 clinical practice guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;55:3–81.
19.
DurrandJWBatterhamAMO’NeillBRet al. Prevalence and implications of a difference in systolic blood pressure between one arm and the other in vascular surgical patients. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:1247–1252.
20.
MordasiniPGrallaJDoDDet al. Percutaneous and open retrograde endovascular stenting of symptomatic high-grade innominate artery stenosis: technique and follow-up. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32:1726–1731.
21.
BerguerRMoraschMDKlineRA.Transthoracic repair of innominate and common carotid artery disease: immediate and long-term outcome for 100 consecutive surgical reconstructions. J Vasc Surg. 1998;27:34–42.
22.
ByrneJDarlingRC3rdRoddySPet al. Long term outcome for extra-anatomic arch reconstruction. An analysis of 143 procedures. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2007;34:444–450.
23.
van de WeijerMAVonkenEJde VriesJPet al. Technical and clinical success and long-term durability of endovascular treatment for atherosclerotic aortic arch branch origin obstruction: evaluation of 144 procedures. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;50:13–20.
24.
OhkiTMarinMLLyonRTet al. Ex vivo human carotid artery bifurcation stenting: correlation of lesion characteristics with embolic potential. J Vasc Surg. 1998;27:463–471.
25.
HenryMAmorMHenryIet al. Carotid stenting with cerebral protection: first clinical experience using the PercuSurge GuardWire system. J Endovasc Surg. 1999;6:321–331.
26.
PayneDAHayesPDBoliaAet al. Cerebral protection during open retrograde angioplasty/stenting of common carotid and innominate artery stenoses. Br J Surg. 2006;93:187–190.
27.
GargNKaragiorgosNPisimisisGTet al. Cerebral protection devices reduce periprocedural strokes during carotid angioplasty and stenting: a systematic review of the current literature. J Endovasc Ther. 2009;16:412–427.
28.
DorrosGLewinRFJamnadasPet al. Peripheral transluminal angioplasty of the subclavian and innominate arteries utilizing the brachial approach: acute outcome and follow-up. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1990;19:71–76.
29.
SharmaSKaulURajaniM.Identifying high-risk patients for percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of subclavian and innominate arteries. Acta Radiol. 1991;32:381–385.
30.
SakamotoSKiuraYKajiharaYet al. Endovascular stenting of symptomatic innominate artery stenosis under distal balloon protection of the internal carotid and vertebral artery for cerebral protection: a technical case report. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2013;155:277–280.
31.
MwipatayiBPThomasSWongJet al. A comparison of covered vs bare expandable stents for the treatment of aortoiliac occlusive disease. J Vasc Surg. 2011;54:1561–1570.
32.
MwipatayiBPSharmaSDaneshmandAet al. Durability of the balloon-expandable covered versus bare-metal stents in the Covered versus Balloon Expandable Stent Trial (COBEST) for the treatment of aortoiliac occlusive disease. J Vasc Surg. 2016;64:83–94.e1.
33.
DosaENemesBBercziVet al. High frequency of brachiocephalic trunk stent fractures does not impair clinical outcome. J Vasc Surg. 2014;59:781–785.
