| | Atheroembolism during percutaneous renal artery revascularizationPresented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Association for Vascular Surgery, Rio Del Mar Hotel and Spa, Puerto Rico, Jan 17-20, 2007. Received 15 January 2006; accepted 16 March 2007. IntroductionAtheroembolization during renal artery angioplasty and stenting (RA-PTAS) has been postulated as a cause for the inferior renal function results observed when compared with those with surgical revascularization. To further characterize procedure-associated atheroembolism, we analyzed recovered atheroembolic debris and clinical data from patients undergoing RA-PTAS with distal embolic protection (DEP). MethodsRA-PTAS procedures were performed with DEP using a commercially available temporary balloon occlusion and aspiration catheter system between July 2005 and December 2006. Following RA-PTAS but prior to deflation of the distal occlusion balloon, the static column of blood proximal to the balloon was aspirated and submitted for embolic particle analysis. Angiograms, demographics, and laboratory data were reviewed. Glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was estimated before RA-PTAS and at 4 to 8 weeks postintervention using the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula. Associations between clinical factors, captured particle counts, and changes in renal function were examined using univariate techniques and multiple linear regression. ResultsTwenty-eight RA-PTAS procedures were performed with DEP. Mean total number of embolic particles counted per procedure was 2033 ± 1553 for particles 20-60 μm and 265 ± 132 for particles >60 μm. Significant positive associations with quantity of captured particles 20 to 60 μm were observed for African American race (P = .002), predilation (P = .005), and stent diameter (P < .001); a significant negative association was observed for preoperative aspirin use (P =.016). Quantity of captured particles >60 μm was positively associated with ratio of stent to renal artery diameter (P =.009). Change in eGFR was positively associated with preoperative aspirin use (P = .006) and preoperative eGFR (P < .001), while a negative association was observed for captured particle counts >60 μm (P = .015). ConclusionThese results demonstrate the liberation of thousands of atheroembolic particles during RA-PTAS. Clinical, anatomic, and device-related factors may be predictive of procedural embolization, and increasing captured particle counts >60 μm were associated with inferior renal function results. Further investigation is warranted to establish relationships between atheroembolism, end organ functional impairment, and clinical responses. Atherosclerotic renovascular disease (RVD) is increasingly recognized as a cause of severe secondary hypertension, renal insufficiency, and end-stage renal disease through reductions in renal blood flow. RVD represents an important public health problem as all of these associated conditions have been demonstrated to increase cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and/or stenting of the renal artery (RA-PTAS) and open surgical revascularization can be used to restore perfusion to affected kidneys. RA-PTAS has become the more frequently employed treatment method in most centers and has demonstrated beneficial effects with regard to improving control of renovascular hypertension in selected patients.6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Reported results have been less favorable, however, in terms of improving associated renal insufficiency,6, 7, 8, 9, 10 which is the major determinant of subsequent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as well as dialysis dependence.11, 12, 13 Procedure-related atheroembolization has been postulated as a cause for the disparate results observed between surgical renal revascularization and RA-PTAS.14, 15, 16 This hypothesis is supported by ex-vivo data16 as well as observational data detailing results exceeding those of historical controls with the use of commercially available distal embolic protection (DEP) devices during RA-PTAS.14, 17, 18, 19, 20 To date, only limited in-vivo data exist regarding the debris liberated during RA-PTAS. This report details recent analytic work investigating the characteristics of and factors associated with atheroembolic debris collected during the conduct of RA-PTAS using DEP. Methods  Patient population This investigation was conducted with approval from the Wake Forest University Health Sciences Institutional Review Board. All RA-PTAS procedures were performed between July 2005 and December 2006 in patients with hemodynamically significant atherosclerotic RVD (≥60% diameter-reducing stenosis by renal duplex ultrasonography) and severe, difficult to control hypertension with or without associated renal insufficiency. Materials reviewed All outpatient clinic, hospital, and endovascular operating suite records were reviewed. Collected data included patient demographics, anthropometrics, medical comorbidities, medications, laboratory results, procedure-specific data, and complications related to RA-PTAS. Percent renal artery stenosis was calculated using a method congruent with that described in the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study.21 Distal renal artery aspirates were collected at the time of RA-PTAS following angioplasty ± stent placement, but prior to deflation of the distal occlusion balloon, and analyzed at the University of California at San Francisco as described below. All data were maintained in a de-identified electronic database. Operative management All RA-PTAS were performed in an endovascular operating suite at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center. Patients were admitted on the day before RA-PTAS to a 23-hour day hospital for intravenous hydration and oral administration of 600 mg N-acetylcysteine every 12 hours. Patients with severe renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≤30 ml/min/1.73 m2) were also treated with intravenous sodium bicarbonate. Only one renal artery lesion was treated at any given procedural setting. Bilateral lesions were treated in a staged fashion to minimize the volume administered and nephrotoxic effects of iodinated contrast and to avoid the potential for bilateral ischemic renal complications. Femoral sheath access was employed for all procedures in this report and intravenous heparin administered (50 to 100 U/kg per surgeon preference) once access was secured. Iodixanol (Visipaque, Amersham Health, Princeton, NJ) was used as the intra-arterial contrast medium for all procedures. Selective renal artery cannulation was accomplished using a minimal contact technique of ostial engagement with an angled guiding catheter telescoped through a 10-cm 6 French sheath. Guidewire crossing of the lesion was performed using a commercially available temporary balloon occlusion and aspiration 0.014-inch DEP guidewire system (Guardwire, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn). The distal occlusion balloon was inflated in the distal main renal artery immediately after crossing the lesion and occlusion confirmed by hand injection of contrast. RA-PTAS was then performed using angioplasty balloons with or without balloon mounted stents (Genesis, Cordis, Miami FL; or Racer, Medtronic, Minneapolis Minn) of operator choice sized to match the distal, normal appearing renal artery. Predilation angioplasty was performed at the discretion of the operating surgeon with the balloon occlusion device in place and inflated. Stents were positioned to extend 1 to 2 mm into the aortic lumen while completely covering the lesion. Following angioplasty ± stent deployment, the static column of blood proximal to the temporary occlusion balloon was evacuated using a rapid exchange aspiration catheter (Export catheter, Medtronic, Minneapolis Minn). Sixty ml of blood was aspirated and the aspiration catheter was then used to inject at least 20 ml of heparinized 0.9% saline to flush any residual debris from the renal artery. The temporary occlusion balloon was then deflated and completion renal arteriography was performed. Routine follow-up included clinic visits at 4 weeks, 6 months, 1 year and, then, yearly with repeat measurement of blood pressure and serum creatinine. Specimen collection and analysis Specimen analysis and processing was conducted at the University of California San Francisco. The initial 5 ml of aspirated blood was transferred to tubes containing 0.109 molar buffered sodium citrate (BD Vacutainer, Becton Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ) and stored at 4°C until particle analysis was performed. For particle analysis, the samples were diluted in an equal volume of 0.9% saline and passed through a 20 μm filter. Fragments retained on the 20 μm filter were then resuspended in sterile saline and passed through a 60 μm filter. Particles 20 to 60 μm in diameter (contained in the effluent after passage through the 60 μm filter) were sized and counted using a Coulter Counter (Beckman Multisizer 3, Beckman Coulter Inc, Fullerton Calif). Particles >60 μm in diameter (retained on the 60 μm filter) were removed, resuspended, counted, and categorized in 100 μm increments under a light microscope at 100x magnification against a 100 μm background grid. In order to estimate the relative contribution of contaminant debris to specimen particle counts, “sham” particle counts were performed on sterile saline passed through filters and resuspended in a manner identical to the handling of specimens. Due to the size-specific methods of particle number and size determination, total counts were grouped into size categories of 20 to 60 μm and >60 μm, reflecting the respective thresholds for use of Coulter Counter vs light microscopy methods for counting and sizing. Renal function was evaluated using the abbreviated modification of diet in renal disease formula for eGFR calculated from pre- and postoperative serum creatinines:22 eGFR/1.73 m2 = 186 × (Serum Creatinine)−1.154 × (Age)−0.203 × (0.742 if female) × (1.210 if African American). Post revascularization renal function was assessed at 4- to 8-week follow-up to allow for the effects of perioperative volume expansion and contrast administration to resolve. This follow-up time point was chosen due to its coincidence with routinely scheduled follow-up employed by our group. Renal function response was categorized on a per-procedure basis as improved or worsened if a ≥20% increase or decrease in eGFR was observed, respectively. Those not meeting these criteria were defined as unchanged. Blood pressure response was assessed using the highest measured brachial blood pressure pre- and postoperatively taken in a sitting position. Blood pressure response was defined according to previously published guidelines23 as follows: cured – diastolic blood pressure (DBP) less than 90 mm Hg and systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than 140 mm Hg off all antihypertensive medications; improved – DBP <90 mm Hg and/or SBP <140 mm Hg on the same or reduced number of medications or a reduction in DBP of at least 15 mm Hg on the same or a reduced number of medications; failed – no change or inability to meet the criteria for cure or improvement. Statistical methods Descriptive statistics are reported as mean ± standard deviation for continuous factors, and counts and percents for categorical factors. Associations between clinical factors and captured debris were examined using t tests for dichotomous factors and univariate regression analyses for continuous factors. Log transformations of total embolic debris counts 20 to 60 μm and >60 μm were analyzed to stabilize variances of those outcomes. Renal function, blood pressure, and antihypertensive agent outcomes following RA-PTAS were examined using paired t tests. Statistical significance was assessed at the 0.05 alpha-level. Log transformations of captured debris counts (20 to 60 μm and >60 μm), and clinical or operative predictors of blood pressure response and eGFR response to RA-PTAS were examined using multiple linear regression models. For each outcome, a “best” model was selected using a forward stepwise selection procedure where the most significant candidate variables with P-value < .15 were entered one-by-one and retained if they remained significant at the .10 level after entry. Residuals for each model were examined after variable selection to evaluate fit and look for influential observations. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS software, version 9 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC). Results  Blood pressure response at 4 to 8 weeks Pre- and postoperative blood pressure and antihypertensive medication use are summarized in Table III. Data on blood pressure response were available for 25/27 patients. Statistically significant decreases in SBP, DBP, and number of antihypertensive agents were observed. At 4- to 8-week follow-up, blood pressure response was defined as cured in zero patients, improved in 12 (48%), and failed in 13 (52%). Embolic particle analysis Particle size and count data are summarized in the figure (Fig). Mean total number of embolic particles counted per procedure was 2033 ± 1553 for particles 20 to 60 μm and 265 ± 132 for particles >60 μm. Mean “sham” total particle count was 26.5 ± 10.4 (range 11 to 46). For captured particle counts 20 to 60 μm, significant multivariate associations were observed with African American race (P = .002), predilation (P = .005), and stent diameter (P < .0001). Preoperative aspirin use was associated with significantly lower captured particle counts (P = .016). For captured particles >60 μm, a significant multivariate association was observed between the ratio of renal artery stent diameter to renal artery diameter (P = .009) and increasing particle counts. Mean particle counts for patients treated for restenotic lesions (N = 4) were: 4121 ± 2682 (<60 microns) and 298 ± 132 (>60 microns). Additional multiple regression analysis excluding patients treated for restenotic lesions did not significantly affect predictors of embolic counts or renal functional outcomes. Associations between captured particle counts and renal function/blood pressure responses: In multivariate models, a significant association was observed between increasing captured particle counts >60 μm and decreasing postoperative eGFR (P = .015). Other significant predictors of postoperative eGFR included preoperative eGFR (P < .001) and aspirin use (P = .006). No significant associations between blood pressure response (systolic or diastolic) and captured embolic particle counts were observed. Discussion  This report describes embolic debris collected from 28 RA-PTAS procedures using DEP. On average, over 2000 particles were captured per procedure. Significant associations were observed between procedural/anatomic factors and the amount of captured debris including renal stent size, preoperative aspirin use, predilation, and the ratio of renal artery stent diameter to artery diameter. Increasing captured particle counts >60 μm demonstrated a significant and independent association with impaired renal function response post revascularization. Procedure-related atheroembolism has been postulated as a factor capable of limiting the clinical results achieved with RA-PTAS. Previously published ex-vivo16, 24, 25 and clinical data14, 17, 18, 19, 20 have demonstrated debris liberation with a variety of angioplasty/stenting models and methods of perioperative circulatory/end-organ monitoring.26, 27, 28 Ex-vivo data16 have demonstrated the liberation of large numbers of particles with an inverse relationship between particle size and number with large numbers of released particles larger than the afferent arterioles (∼30 to 50 μm) of the kidney. These data have also suggested that atheroembolization occurs with equal frequency during each step of a typical RA-PTAS procedure. These ex-vivo findings have been corroborated, in some areas, and expanded upon by data from a variety of clinical intraoperative monitoring and postoperative imaging studies.26, 27, 28 The data presented in this report are consistent with the ex-vivo observations referenced above. A large number of particles were captured and quantified in blood samples retrieved from the renal artery during RA-PTAS with a temporary distal balloon occlusion and aspiration device. Previously noted relationships between particle size and number were again observed, with consistent liberation of particles large enough to occlude the microvasculature of the nephron. Protecting the renal circulation from these embolic particles released during RA-PTAS would seem to be an obvious goal as a logical extension of these data. The potential need for such protection was anticipated by the medical device industry prior to the publication of related data. A variety of embolic protection devices have been commercially available for several years with FDA-approved indications for use in coronary saphenous vein grafts and carotid artery stenting. Use of these devices has been extended, “off-label”, to RA-PTAS, and reports detailing their use have been published by several groups, including our own.14, 17, 18, 19, 20 These authors have reported positive results in comparison with historical controls in terms of improved renal function and/or protection from renal function deterioration. These reports have also provided limited descriptions of collected debris, reporting a 44% to 100% capture of visible debris with collected particle numbers in the hundreds to thousands. The data in this report provide further corroboration of the previously reported findings and expand on existing knowledge regarding the quantity, size, and distribution of liberated embolic debris. While grossly visible debris was visible among a subset of patients, procedure-related liberation of microscopically visible debris occurred among all patients undergoing RA-PTAS. A significant rate of positive renal function response to RA-PTAS with distal embolic protection was also observed in the current sample and no short-term renal function deterioration was noted. In an exploratory analysis of associations with captured debris, significant and independent associations were observed between captured particle counts and potential precipitants of particle liberation including predilation, renal artery stent diameter, and the ratio of renal stent to arterial diameter. Furthermore, in multiple linear regression models, a significant inverse association was observed between the quantity of collected particles >60 μm in diameter and the subsequent observed change in eGFR post RA-PTAS. Several explanations for these associations exist. The positive associations with particle counts 20 to 60 μm for renal artery stent diameter and predilation may represent associations with plaque volume. The association with predilation may also be indicative of particle liberation during an initial device passage and inflation in high-grade lesions. Oversizing of the stent relative to the distal renal artery may represent another potential explanation for the association with renal artery stent diameter. This argument is strengthened by the observation of a strong association between stent oversizing (relative to distal arterial diameter) and captured particle counts of debris >60 μm. Numerous potential explanations also exist with regard to the observed inverse association between captured debris counts and eGFR response. One potential explanation relates to lesion characteristics; a subset of stenotic lesions may be qualitatively unstable, or “embolically prone”, and liberate relatively greater amounts of debris during manipulation. As such, these lesions may have released significant quantities of debris during selective angiography and guidewire passage prior to occlusion of the renal artery using DEP, negatively impacting subsequent renal function responses. An extension of this hypothesis would be that these “embolically prone” lesions continue to shed debris through stent interstices following removal of the DEP device, providing a potential nidus for platelet aggregation and limiting early and sustained renal function response. These hypotheses are compatible with the observed association between preoperative aspirin use and eGFR response. A third potential explanation is that DEP was not effective in preventing debris passage and renal function damage. Our group favors a combination of the “embolically prone” lesion hypotheses. The lack of observed associations with other potential precipitants of embolization, such as lesion length and clopidogrel non-use, could be secondary to the limited material analyzed or the small sample size. After controlling for preoperative eGFR, preoperative aspirin use was a significant predictor of both captured particle counts of debris 20 to 60 μm and improved postoperative eGFR, while increasing number of captured fragments >60 μm in diameter was associated with a significant decrease in eGFR. Interestingly, smaller particles (20 to 60 μm) were not predictive of postoperative eGFR reduction in our analyses. Potential explanations exist for these differing results according to particle size. First, eGFR is an estimate of global renal function and may not be a sensitive enough measure to reflect minor reductions in single kidney function resulting from small particle embolization. Second, it is likely that particles categorized by size criteria and method of quantification may also differ in their composition (eg, cholesterol fragments, platelet aggregates and/or thrombus) and resultant end-organ effect following embolization. Finally, particles below a threshold size may have little or no effect on renal function following embolization. We suspect that a combination of these factors explain the observed associations and that further investigation, including qualitative particle analysis, is warranted. Captured particle counts in this study were in excess of those from previous reports using the Guardwire protection device in the carotid circulation.29, 30 This difference in mean counts may be due to intrinsic differences in anatomic and/or plaque characteristics between these two arterial locations. Alternatively, some or all of this difference may be related to the broader size range of particles counted; our analysis of particles down to a lower size minimum generated counts that were highest at the smaller end of the size range. Prior comparisons between balloon vs filter protection devices have suggested that the balloon devices are superior in capturing small particles,30 and we continue to favor such devices at our institution for embolic protection in the renal system. If the observed association between captured particles and renal function response is indeed valid, these data have significant implications regarding the clinical and operative management of patients with renal artery stenosis. The rationale for DEP during RA-PTAS would be further supported with the goal of optimizing renal function response, especially in light of previously published data indicating that renal function response following RA-PTAS is a key determinant of subsequent morbidity and mortality.11, 12, 13 Furthermore, there would be technical and device specific implications. If embolic particle liberation is indeed a key event occurring at multiple successive steps of the procedure, then technical performance of RA-PTAS must be performed with minimal, gentle lesion manipulation prior to DEP device deployment. DEP devices may also require further device-specific refinement to ensure capture of the correct particle size distribution, to minimize particle liberation during device passage, and to potentially eliminate the need for lesion crossing altogether. Finally, preoperative aspirin use and avoidance of stent oversizing appeared to be important clinical factors that reduced captured debris and, by extension, could improve renal functional outcomes. While this study provides intriguing data regarding the liberation of atheroembolic debris during RA-PTAS, numerous limitations exist that deserve comment. First, this report details an inherently incomplete analysis of liberated debris due to unavoidable limitations in debris capture. It is likely that there was considerable loss of debris into the adjacent aortic blood flow during the procedure as well as potentially incomplete evacuation through the aspiration catheter limiting the debris available for analysis. Furthermore, only five of the 60 mL of blood routinely aspirated were analyzed due to cost and resource constraints. Additionally, this investigation reports data from a modest sample of 28 RA-PTAS procedures with DEP, limiting inferential power. During aspirate collection, the particulate material was clearly mobile and easily aspirated. We believe that this material represents liberated embolic debris, but cannot be certain that the particles adherent to the luminal surface were not aspirated due to the negative pressure or possibly liberated by the aspiration catheter rather than during angioplasty and/or stenting. Our use of saline instead of peripheral blood samples to generate sham particle counts may have resulted in underestimation of the contribution of nonembolic blood components to overall counts. We intend to analyze peripheral blood samples in addition to saline in future work to determine whether a change in method is warranted. Renal function response was measured using a widely accepted GFR estimating equation based on serum creatinine values and demographics. As previously mentioned, this eGFR equation has not been validated in individuals with RVD and serum creatinine is a relatively insensitive measure of subtle renal function change. This is especially true in individuals with normal renal function, a group which was significantly represented in this sample. Finally, qualitative analysis of the liberated debris was not performed due to the small amounts of material collected; such analysis might provide further insight into the nature of procedure-related atheroembolism. These limitations notwithstanding, this investigation provides new data regarding the occurrence of embolization during RA-PTAS and its potential limiting effects on renal function outcome. Further investigation is required to more completely define these associations as well as the appropriate role for DEP devices in the conduct of RA-PTAS. Author contributions  Conception and design: ME, MC, TC, KH Analysis and interpretation: ME, MC, TC, JP, XP, JR, KH Data collection: MC, JP, NM, XP, JR Writing the article: ME, MC, TC, JP, JR, XP,KH Critical revision of the article: ME, MC, TC, KH Final approval of the article: ME, MC, TC, JP, XP, JR, NM, KH Statistical analysis: TC, ME, MC Obtained funding: ME, KH Overall responsibility: ME References  1. 1Edwards MS, Craven TE, Burke GL, Dean RH, Hansen KJ. Renovascular disease and the risk of adverse coronary events in the elderly - a prospective, population-based study. Arch Internal Med. 2005;165:207–213. 2. 2Fried LF, Shlipak MG, Crump C, Bleyer AJ, Gottdiener JS, Kronmal RA, et al. Renal insufficiency as a predictor of cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in elderly individuals. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:1364–1372. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (136 KB)
|
CrossRef
3. 3Johansson M, Herlitz H, Jensen G, Rundqvist B, Friberg P. Increased cardiovascular mortality in hypertensive patients with renal artery stenosis (Relation to sympathetic activation, renal function, and treatment regimens). J Hypertens. 1999;17:1743–1750. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
4. 4Shlipak MG, Fried LF, Crump C, Bleyer AJ, Manolio TA, Tracy RP, et al. Cardiovascular disease risk status in elderly persons with renal insufficiency. Kidney Int. 2002;62:997–1004. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
5. 5Shlipak MG, Fried LF, Crump C, Bleyer AJ, Manolio TA, Tracy RP, et al. Elevations of inflammatory and procoagulant biomarkers in elderly persons with renal insufficiency. Circulation. 2003;107:87–92.
CrossRef
6. 6Baumgartner I, von Aesch K, Do DD, Triller J, Birrer M, Mahler F. Stent placement in ostial and nonostial atherosclerotic renal arterial stenoses: a prospective follow-up study. Radiology. 2000;216:498–505. MEDLINE 7. 7Henry M, Amor M, Henry I, Ethevenot C, Allaoui M, Tricoche O, et al. Stent placement in the renal artery: three-year experience with the Palmaz stent. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1996;7:343–350. Abstract |
Full-Text PDF (4592 KB)
|
CrossRef
8. 8Lederman RJ, Mendelsohn FO, Santos R, Phillips HR, Stack RS, Crowley JJ. Primary renal artery stenting: characteristics and outcomes after 363 procedures. Am Heart J. 2001;142:314–323. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (187 KB)
|
CrossRef
9. 9Tuttle KR, Chouinard RF, Webber JT, Dahlstrom LR, Short RA, Henneberry KJ, et al. Treatment of atherosclerotic ostial renal artery stenosis with the intravascular stent. Am J Kidney Dis. 1998;32:611–622. Abstract |
Full-Text PDF (229 KB)
|
CrossRef
10. 10Zeller T, Frank U, Muller C, Burgelin K, Sinn L, Horn B, et al. Stent-supported angioplasty of severe atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis preserves renal function and improves blood pressure control: long-term results from a prospective registry of 456 lesions. J Endovasc Ther. 2004;11:95–106. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
11. 11Cherr GS, Hansen KJ, Craven TE, Edwards MS, Ligush J, Levy PJ, et al. Surgical management of atherosclerotic renovascular disease. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35:236–245. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (109 KB)
|
CrossRef
12. 12Kennedy DJ, Colyer WR, Brewster PS, Ankenbrandt M, Burket MW, Nemeth AS, et al. Renal insufficiency as a predictor of adverse events and mortality after renal artery stent placement. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003;42:926–935. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (309 KB)
13. 13Marone LK, Clouse WD, Dorer DJ, Brewster DC, LaMuraglia GM, Watkins MT, et al. Preservation of renal function with surgical revascularization in patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease. J Vasc Surg. 2004;39:322–329. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (133 KB)
|
CrossRef
14. 14Edwards MS, Craven BL, Stafford J, Craven TE, Sauve KJ, Ayerdi J, et al. Distal embolic protection during renal artery angioplasty and stenting. J Vasc Surg. 2006;44:128–135. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (184 KB)
|
CrossRef
15. 15Henry M, Henry I, Klonaris C, Polydorou A, Rath P, Lakshmi G, et al. Renal angioplasty and stenting under protection: the way for the future?. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent. 2003;60:299–312. 16. 16Hiramoto J, Hansen KJ, Pan XM, Edwards MS, Sawhney R, Rapp JH. Atheroemboli during renal artery angioplasty: an ex-vivo study. J Vasc Surg. 2005;41:1026–1030. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (151 KB)
|
CrossRef
17. 17Henry M, Amor M, Henry I, Klonaris C, Tzvetanov K, Chati Z, et al. Protected renal artery angioplasty and stenting: a new concept of treatment (First preliminary report with PercuSurge Guardwire). Am J Cardiol. 1999;84(6A):19P. 18. 18Henry M, Klonaris C, Henry I, Tzetanov K, Le Borgne E, Foliguet B, et al. Protected renal stenting with the PercuSurge GuardWire device: a pilot study. J Endovasc Ther. 2001;8:227–237. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
19. 19Holden A, Hill A. Renal angioplasty and stenting with distal protection of the main renal artery in ischemic nephropathy: early experience. J Vasc Surg. 2003;38:962–968. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (166 KB)
|
CrossRef
20. 20Holden A, Hill A, Jaff MR, Pilmore H. Renal artery stent revascularization with embolic protection in patients with ischemic nephropathy. Kidney Int. 2006;70:948–955. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
21. 21Walker MD, Marler JR, Goldstein M, Grady PA, Toole JF, Baker WH, et al. Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid-artery stenosis. JAMA. 1995;273:1421–1428. MEDLINE 22. 22Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:461. MEDLINE 23. 23Rundback JH, Sacks D, Kent KC, Cooper C, Jones D, Murphy T, et al. Guidelines for the reporting of renal artery revascularization in clinical trials. Circulation. 2002;106:1572–1585.
CrossRef
24. 24Rapp JH, Pan XM, Sharp FR, Shah DM, Wille GA, Velez PM, et al. Atheroemboli to the brain: size threshold for causing acute neuronal cell death. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32(1):68–75. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (110 KB)
|
CrossRef
25. 25Rapp JH, Pan XM, Yu B, Swanson RA, Higashida RT, Simpson P, et al. Cerebral ischemia and infarction from atheroemboli < 100 mu m in size. Stroke. 2003;34:1976–1980.
CrossRef
26. 26Orlandi G, Fanucchi S, Fioretti C, Acerbi G, Puglioli M, Padolecchia R, et al. Characteristics of cerebral microembolism during carotid stenting and angioplasty alone. Arch Neurol. 2001;58:1410–1413. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
27. 27Pinero P, Gonzalez A, Mayol A, Martinez E, Gonzalez-Marcos JR, Boza F, et al. Silent ischemia after neuroprotected percutaneous carotid stenting: a diffusion-weighted MRI study. AJNR. 2006;27:1338–1345. MEDLINE 28. 28van Heesewijk HPM, Vos JA, Louwerse ES, van den Berg JC, Overtoom TTC, Ernst SMPG, et al. New brain lesions at MR imaging after carotid angioplasty and stent placement. Radiology. 2002;224:361–365. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
29. 29Tubler T, Schluter M, Dirsch O, Sievert H, Bosenberg I, Grube E, et al. Balloon-protected carotid artery stenting - relationship of periprocedural neurological complications with the size of particulate debris. Circulation. 2001;104:2791–2796.
CrossRef
30. 30Quan VH, Huynh R, Seifert PA, Kuchela A, Chen WH, Sutsch G, et al. Morphometric analysis of particulate debris extracted by four different embolic protection devices from coronary arteries, aortocoronary saphenous vein conduits, and carotid arteries. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95:1415–1419. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (242 KB)
|
CrossRef
a Division of Surgical Sciences, Section on Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC b Department of Biostatistical Sciences at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC c Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Department of Surgery, Division of Vascular Surgery, at the University of California, San Francisco, Calif. Correspondence: Matthew S. Edwards, MD, FACS, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, General Surgery, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1095.
Dr Edwards is supported by the American Vascular Association and Lifeline Foundation Research Career Development Award and Grant 1K23HL083981-01 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Competition of interest: none. CME article PII: S0741-5214(07)00515-0 doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2007.03.039 © 2007 The Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | |
|