Abdou, Hossam

Objectives While methods of endovascular carotid artery stenting have improved over time, concerns surrounding the safety and efficacy of stenting for blunt carotid injury (BCI) remain. This study aims to present our approach to carotid artery stenting (CAS) by incorporating new technologies such as flow-diverting stents and circuits. Methods There is no robust evidence to support routine carotid artery stenting; however, there are several therapeutic options and approaches for treating BCI that currently require an individualized approach. Endovascular stenting and specific stent selection are largely dictated by the disease process the surgeon intends to treat. We will discuss patient selection, medical management, and the most common revascularization techniques, including transfemoral stenting, trans-carotid arterial revascularization using flow reversal, and stent-assisting coiling. Results It must be stressed that endovascular intervention is not an alternative to or preclusive of antithrombotic or anticoagulant therapy. In the setting of BCI, transfemoral CAS is most appropriate in patients who are symptomatic, have a rapidly progressing or large lesion, and do not have a soft thrombus present due to risk of embolism. Unlike transfemoral CAS, TCAR offers an elegant solution for embolic protection when patients have a soft thrombus present. In the case of a large pseudoaneurysm, we perform stent-assisted coiling. Conclusions We practice selective endovascular intervention, stenting lesions that are flow-limiting or have large or rapidly expanding pseudoaneurysms, and only in patients for whom anticoagulation and antiplatelet agents are not contraindicated. As technology and investigation progress, the concerns regarding the safety and the role of endovascular intervention in the treatment of BCI will be more clearly defined.

Intraoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging with endovascular delivery of intra-arterial (IA) contrast could potentially provide higher attenuation with lower contrast volumes than intravenous (IV) administration. We aimed to compare IA and IV contrast use for organ-specific CT abdominal imaging. Five anesthetized swine had external jugular and brachial artery access with ascending aortic pigtail placement. An IV protocol was 100 mL at 5 mL/sec over 20 sec vs 50 mL of IA contrast at 5 mL/sec over 10 sec. Region-of-interest markers were applied to anatomical regions to measure attenuation (HU) over time. IA and IV contrast protocols achieved adequate aortic opacification (IA, 455 ± 289 vs IV, 450 ± 114 HU). The IA contrast aortic attenuation curve reached peak attenuation compared with IV contrast (IA, 8 vs 23 sec; P < .001). Time to peak attenuation was similar between IA and IV contrast in the portal vein (IA, 38 vs IV, 42 sec, P = .25). IA administration achieved a superior contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in less time compared with IV (R 2 = .94; P < .001). IA contrast achieved adequate opacification with less bolus broadening and a superior CNR compared with IV contrast while using a smaller contrast volume for directed organ-directed imaging.