Percutaneous transcatheter balloon dilatation and stenting to the inflow cannula stenosis of a left ventricular assist device.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) improve survival in patients with advanced heart failure but are prone to various complications causing mechanical failure. Inflow cannula stenosis presents a particular challenge often requiring invasive surgical repair. We present a novel transcatheter approach for stent delivery to successfully restore hemodynamic function in a patient with inflow cannula stenosis of a HeartMate II LVAD. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Carotid artery aneurysm: evolution of management over two decades.

INTRODUCTION: Extracranial carotid artery aneurysm (CCA), although uncommon, represents a challenge to treatment strategy. The purpose of this study was to analyze the treatment evolution and clinical outcome of all patients with CCA over a two decade period. METHODS: Clinical data of all patients diagnosed with CCA who underwent interventions from 1984 to 2004 were reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups. Group I (1985-1994) and group II (1995-2004) were compared with regards to clinical presentation, treatment modality, and clinical outcome. RESULTS: A total of 42 cases of CCA were found during the study period (group I, n=22; group II, n=20). Pulsatile neck mass was the most common presenting symptom (n=39, 93%), followed by neurological symptoms (n=6, 14%). Twenty two (52%) were atherosclerotic aneurysms, fifteen (36%) false aneurysms, and five (12%) posttraumatic aneurysms. Both groups shared similar comorbidities and demographic profiles. All patients in group I underwent operative interventions, which included 12 resection with interposition bypass grafting (55%), six resection with patch angioplasty (27%), and four carotid ligation (18%). In group II, five patients underwent resection with interposition placement (25%) and one carotid ligation (5%). The remaining 14 patients underwent endovascular interventions (70%) which included seven stent-graft exclusions, six carotid stenting with coil exclusions, and one endovascular occlusion. Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter in group II than group I (3.5 vs. 9.4 days, p<0.01). The incidence of cranial nerve injury in group I and II were 14% vs. 5% (p<0.04), respectively. The 30-day mortality/major stroke rates in group I and II were 14% vs. 5% (p< 0.04), respectively. During the follow-up period (0.8 months-20 years; mean, 4.6 years), 16 patients died, largely due to cardiac etiologies (n=11, 69%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment modality of CCA has largely evolved from operative to endovascular intervention at our institution. Treatment benefits of endovascular modality include shorter convalescent and less procedural-related complications. This evolution reflects the improvement of endovascular devices and increased utility of endovascular applications.

A comparison of carotid artery stenting with neuroprotection versus carotid endarterectomy under local anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) reduce the risk of stroke in patients with high-grade carotid artery stenosis. Despite the known impact of type of anesthesia on outcome after CEA, none of the current studies comparing CEA with CAS addresses the effect of anesthetic choice on perioperative events. In this study, we compare our results of distally protected CAS versus CEA under local anesthesia. METHODS: Clinical data of 345 patients who underwent 372 procedures for carotid artery occlusive disease over a 36-month were retrospectively collected for this analysis. Distal embolic protection was used in CAS procedures. All procedures, both CEA (n = 221, 59%) and CAS (N = 152, 41%), were performed under local anesthesia. The primary outcome measure was aggregate 30-day major ipsilateral stroke and/or death. Follow-up serial Duplex ultrasound examinations were performed. RESULTS: Both patient cohorts were similar in terms of demographic and risk factors, with the exception of a higher incidence of coronary artery disease in the CAS group (59% versus 30%, P <.05). The 30-day stroke and death rates were 3.2% (CAS) and 3.7% (CEA) (P = not significant). Cranial nerve injury only occurred in the CEA patients (2.3%). Perioperative hemodynamic instability was more common among patients in the CAS group (11.9% versus 4.1%, P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous carotid stenting with neuroprotection provides comparable clinical success to CEA performed under local anesthetic. Further studies are warranted to validate the long-term efficacy of CAS and to elucidate patient selection criteria for endovascular carotid revascularization.

Carotid artery stenting with routine cerebral protection in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting has emerged as an alternative treatment modality in carotid occlusive disease. This study examined our experience of carotid stenting with routine cerebral embolization protection in high-risk patients. METHODS: Clinical variables and treatment outcome of high-risk patients who underwent carotid stenting with neuroprotection were analyzed during a 26-month period. RESULTS: Sixty-eight high-risk patients with 72 carotid artery stenoses were treated. Procedural success was achieved in 70 cases (97%), and symptomatic lesions existed in 17 (24%) patients. Monorail Wallstents stents were used in all cases. Neuroprotective devices used were PercuSurge (28%) and Filterwire (72%). There was no periprocedural mortality or neuroprotective device-related complications. The 30-day stroke and death rate was 2.7%, and the overall complication rate was 6.9%. All stented vessels remained patent during the follow-up period (mean 15.3 +/- 4.2, range 1 to 23 months). Two asymptomatic in-stent restenosis (3%) occurred at 6 and 8 months, which were both successfully treated with balloon angioplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that percutaneous carotid stenting with routine use of a cerebral protection device is a feasible and effective treatment in high-risk patients with carotid occlusive disease.

The thienopyridines.

Platelet adhesion, activation, and aggregation are key processes in the pathogenesis of coronary disease. Inhibition of these processes forms the cornerstone of therapy for coronary artery disease and particularly of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Aspirin was the only available antiplatelet therapy for over 100 years, and it improves clinical outcome in a wide range of clinical situations. However, aspirin only inhibits platelet activation mediated by thromboxane A2, allowing platelet activation to occur through innumerable other pathways. As a result, adverse ischemic events are common when aspirin alone is used for the treatment of coronary disease, including ACS, during coronary interventions (particularly during stent implantation), and following coronary vascular brachytherapy (VBT). In these clinical situations, the presence of either thrombus, deep injury to the vessel wall, or delayed vascular reendothelialization leads to intense and often prolonged platelet activation, overwhelming the relatively weak effects of aspirin. The development of the thienopyridines, a class of antiplatelet drugs that reduce adenosine diphosphate-(ADP) mediated platelet activation, has significantly improved clinical outcomes in many coronary conditions. Widespread use of ticlopidine, the first available thienopyridine, was limited by frequent side-effects, including life-threatening neutropenia and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Following the introduction of clopidogrel, a thienopyridine with an excellent safety profile, dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel has become standard therapy following coronary stent implantation and coronary VBT. In patients presenting with ACS, the addition of clopidogrel to aspirin has now been proven to reduce ischemic events. The most important limitation of dual antiplatelet therapy is the increased bleeding risk as compared with aspirin alone, particularly in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting during the index hospitalization. However, for many patients with ACS, combination therapy is appropriate.