Although transfemoral carotid artery stenting (CAS) is widely performed for carotid stenosis, serious or even fatal complications such as embolic and access site complications can still occur. We devised a novel dual protection system with continuous flow reversal to the cephalic vein of the forearm in transradial CAS, referred to as the “trans-forearm dual protection” technique.
Methods
A 75-year-old man with a diagnosis of symptomatic left cervical internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis underwent CAS using the trans-forearm dual protection technique.
Results
A 4F sheath was introduced into the cephalic vein of the right forearm. After an 8F balloon-guiding catheter was navigated into the left common carotid artery (CCA) via right sheathless radial access, a distal filter protection device was advanced into the high cervical ICA. The 8F balloon-guiding catheter was inflated and connected to the 4F sheath with a blood filter interposed. Under the dual protection of flow reversal and distal filter, the CAS procedure was performed. The postprocedural course was uneventful. Diffusion-weighted imaging 2 days after the procedure showed no evidence of ischemic stroke. The patient was discharged home without any complications 1 week after the procedure. Carotid duplex ultrasound performed 9 months after the procedure showed no signs of restenosis.
Conclusions
This method allows for CAS under the dual protection of flow reversal and filter device protection via the trans-forearm access, reducing the risk of embolism and access site complications. Therefore, the trans-forearm dual protection technique can be a useful option for CAS.
ManteseVATimaranCHChiuD, et al.The carotid revascularization endarterectomy versus stenting trial (CREST): stenting versus carotid endarterectomy for carotid disease. Stroke2010; 41: S31–S34.
2.
MarnatGHolayQDarcourtJ, et al.Dual-layer carotid stenting for symptomatic carotid web: results from the Caroweb study. J Neuroradiol2023; 50: 444–448.
3.
GoodneyPPPowellRJ. Carotid artery stenting: what have we learned from the clinical trials and registries and where do we go from here?Ann Vasc Surg2008; 22: 148–158.
4.
BrottTGHobsonRW2ndHowardG, et al.Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med2010;363:11–23.
5.
PlessersMVan HerzeeleIHemelsoetD, et al.Transcervical carotid stenting with dynamic flow reversal demonstrates embolization rates comparable to carotid endarterectomy. J Endovasc Ther2016; 23: 249–254.
6.
Castro-AfonsoLHAbudLGRoloJG, et al.Flow reversal versus filter protection: a pilot carotid artery stenting randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv2013; 6: 552–559.
7.
HaradaKMoriokaJHigaT, et al.Significance of combining distal filter protection and a guiding catheter with temporary balloon occlusion for carotid artery stenting: clinical results and evaluation of debris capture. Ann Vasc Surg2012; 26: 929–936.
8.
KajiharaYSakamotoSKiuraY, et al.Comparison of dual protection and distal filter protection as a distal embolic protection method during carotid artery stenting: a single-center carotid artery stenting experience. Neurosurg Rev2015; 38: 671–676.
9.
MotekiYNiimiYSatoS, et al.Effectiveness of the combined use of distal filter protection device and Mo.Ma Ultra: technical note. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis2016; 25: 2627–2631.
10.
SakamotoSKiuraYOkazakiT, et al.Carotid artery stenting for vulnerable plaques on MR angiography and ultrasonography: utility of dual protection and blood aspiration method. J Neurointerv Surg2016; 8: 1011–1015.
11.
VarbellaFGagnorARolfoC, et al.Feasibility of carotid artery stenting with double cerebral embolic protection in high-risk patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2016; 87: 432–437.
12.
VuruskanESaracogluEErgunU, et al.Carotid artery stenting with double cerebral embolic protection in asymptomatic patients – a diffusion-weighted MRI controlled study. Vasa2017; 46: 29–35.
13.
GotoSOhshimaTKatoK, et al.Efficacy of carotid artery stenting by the Universal Protection Method. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis2018; 27: 2187–2191.
14.
TexakalidisPLetsosAKokkinidisDG, et al.Proximal embolic protection versus distal filter protection versus combined protection in carotid artery stenting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Revasc Med2018; 19: 545–552.
15.
MaedaYSakamotoSOkazakiT, et al.Carotid artery stenting in patients with contralateral carotid occlusion using a combined protection method. Vasc Endovascular Surg2022; 56: 495–500.
16.
KhanMADodo-WilliamsTSJanssenC, et al.Comparing outcomes of transfemoral versus transbrachial or transradial approach in carotid artery stenting (CAS). Ann Vasc Surg.2023. Epub ahead of print 7 February 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2023.01.039
17.
EskandariMKNajjarSFMatsumuraJS, et al.Technical limitations of carotid filter embolic protection devices. Ann Vasc Surg2007; 21: 403–407.
18.
FinolEASiewiorekGMScottiCM, et al.Wall apposition assessment and performance comparison of distal protection filters. J Endovasc Ther2008; 15: 177–185.
19.
CasserlyIPAbou-CheblAFathiRB, et al.Slow-flow phenomenon during carotid artery intervention with embolic protection devices: predictors and clinical outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol2005; 46: 1466–1472.
20.
SakamotoMTaokaTNakagawaH, et al.Magnetic resonance plaque imaging to predict the occurrence of the slow-flow phenomenon in carotid artery stenting procedures. Neuroradiology2010; 52: 275–283.
21.
BijuklicKWandlerAHaziziF, et al.The PROFI study (prevention of cerebral embolization by proximal balloon occlusion compared to filter protection during carotid artery stenting): a prospective randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol2012; 59: 1383–1389.
22.
HanaokaYKoyamaJIOgiwaraT, et al.Usefulness of a novel technique to make up for a deficiency in transradial neurointervention with a 6Fr Simmonds guiding sheath: original experience with the subclavian artery anchoring technique. World Neurosurg2019; 131: e362–e370.
23.
HanaokaYKoyamaJIYamazakiD, et al.Transradial approach as the primary vascular access with a 6-Fr Simmons guiding sheath for anterior circulation interventions: a single-center case series of 130 consecutive patients. World Neurosurg2020; 138: e597–e606.
24.
HanaokaYKoyamaJIOgiwaraT, et al.Feasibility and safety of radial-first approach with a radial-specific neurointerventional guiding sheath for intracranial aneurysm coiling in the anterior circulation. World Neurosurg2020; 142: e297–e306.
25.
HanaokaYKoyamaJIFujiiY, et al.Bilateral transradial approach for coil embolization of basilar artery aneurysms associated with an unfavorable vertebral artery anatomy: initial experience with role-sharing technique. Clin Neuroradiol2021; 31: 699–707.
26.
HanaokaYKoyamaJIYamazakiD, et al.Transradial quadraxial system for coil embolization of distal anterior cerebral artery aneurysms: a radial-first center case series and literature review. J Neuroradiol2022; 49: 169–172.
KuroiwaMHanaokaYKoyamaJI, et al.Transradial mechanical thrombectomy using a radial-specific neurointerventional guiding sheath for anterior circulation large-vessel occlusions: preliminary experience and literature review. World Neurosurg2023; 171: e581–e589.
29.
RentiyaZSKuhnALHutnikR, et al.Transradial access for cerebral angiography and neurointerventional procedures: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Interv Neuroradiol.2022. Epub ahead of print 15 July 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15910199221112200
30.
ChivotCBouzerarRYzetT. A novel technique to perform cerebral angiography via the left radial approach: an 80 patients series. J Neuroradiol2023; 50: 93–98.
31.
WaqasMMonteiroABaigAA, et al.Rist guide catheter for endovascular procedures: initial case series from a single center. Interv Neuroradiol2023; 29: 108–113.
32.
QuinnCMasoodKMehtaT, et al.Trans-radial spinal angiography: a single-center experience. Interv Neuroradiol2024; 30: 288–292.
33.
UmekawaMKoizumiSOharaK, et al.Distal radial artery approach is safe and effective for cerebral angiography and neuroendovascular treatment: a single-center experience with ultrasonographic measurement. Interv Neuroradiol2024; 30: 280–287.
34.
NguyenPMakrisAHennessyA, et al.Standard versus ultrasound-guided radial and femoral access in coronary angiography and intervention (SURF): a randomised controlled trial. EuroIntervention2019; 15: e522–e530.
35.
ChughYBavishiCMojadidiMK, et al.Safety of transradial access compared to transfemoral access with hemostatic devices (vessel plugs and suture devices) after percutaneous coronary interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2020; 96: 285–295.
36.
LamRCLinSCDeRubertisB, et al.The impact of increasing age on anatomic factors affecting carotid angioplasty and stenting. J Vasc Surg2007; 45: 875–880.
37.
ShotarEPouliquenGPrematK, et al.CTA-based patient-tailored femoral or radial frontline access reduces the rate of catheterization failure in chronic subdural hematoma embolization. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2021; 42: 495–500.
38.
HeckDJostAHowardG. Stenting the carotid artery from radial access using a Simmons guide catheter. J Neurointerv Surg2022; 14: 169–173.
39.
YamazakiDHanaokaYKoyamaJI, et al.New distal balloon protection system for transradial carotid artery stenting after Percusurge Guardwire withdrawal: jailbreak technique. World Neurosurg2022; 168: 58–62.
KedevSPetkoskaDZafirovskaB, et al.Safety of slender 5Fr transradial approach for carotid artery stenting with a novel nitinol double-layer micromesh stent. Am J Cardiol2015; 116: 977–981.
42.
PetkoskaDZafirovskaBVasilevI, et al.Radial and ulnar approach for carotid artery stenting with Roadsaver™ double layer micromesh stent: early and long-term follow-up. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2023; 101: 154–163.
43.
MontorsiPGalliSRavagnaniPM, et al.Carotid artery stenting with proximal embolic protection via a transradial or transbrachial approach: pushing the boundaries of the technique while maintaining safety and efficacy. J Endovasc Ther2016; 23: 549–560.
44.
MoldovanKYaegerKAAl-KawazM, et al.Transradial carotid artery stenting using Walrus balloon guide catheter: technical aspects and clinical outcome. Oper Neurosurg.2023. Epub ahead of print 21 April 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1227/ons.0000000000000717
45.
DahmJBVogelgesangDHummelA, et al.A randomized trial of 5 vs. 6 French transradial percutaneous coronary interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2002; 57: 172–176.
46.
KiemeneijF. Prevention and management of radial artery spasm. J Invasive Cardiol2006; 18: 159–160.
47.
CollinsNWainsteinRWardM, et al.Pseudoaneurysm after transradial cardiac catheterization: case series and review of the literature. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2012; 80: 283–287.
48.
HondaTFujimotoKMiyaoY, et al.Access site-related complications after transradial catheterization can be reduced with smaller sheath size and statins. Cardiovasc Interv Ther2012; 27: 174–180.
49.
KupóPPapRSághyL, et al.Ultrasound guidance for femoral venous access in electrophysiology procedures-systematic review and meta-analysis. J Interv Card Electrophysiol2020; 59: 407–414.
50.
MatsuoMHonmaSSonomuraT, et al.Clinical anatomy of the cephalic vein for safe performance of venipuncture. JA Clin Rep2017; 3: 50.
