Superior mesenteric artery stenting using embolic protection device for treatment of acute or chronic mesenteric ischemia

Bernardo C. Mendes, Gustavo Oderich, Tiziano Tallarita, Karina S. Kanamori, Manju Kalra, Randall R De Martino, Fahad Shuja, Jill K. Johnstone

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study was to report the feasibility and results of superior mesenteric artery (SMA) stenting using embolic protection devices (EPDs) to treat acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) and chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI). Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of consecutive patients who underwent SMA stenting with EPDs from 2007 to 2016. EPDs were used selectively in patients with occlusions, severe calcification, or acute thrombus. A two-wire technique with SpiderFX 0.014-inch filter wire (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn) combined with a 0.018-inch wire was used to provide support and to facilitate stenting and EPD retrieval. Presence of macroscopic debris in the EPD was recorded and graded as minor (minimal debris) or major (large thrombus or plaque). End points were technical success, presence of EPD debris, embolization, early morbidity, and mortality. Results: SMA stenting was performed in 179 patients, of whom 65 (36%) had EPDs. The mean age was 73 ± 11 years, and 49 were female (75%). Clinical presentation was CMI in 48 patients (74%) and AMI or acute-on-CMI in 17 (26%). Indications for EPD were severe calcification in 22 patients (34%), acute thrombus in 18 (28%), and total occlusion in 16 (25%). Bare-metal stents were used in 33 patients, covered stents in 26, and both types in 6. Adjunctive therapy included thrombolysis in seven patients, thrombectomy in four, and atherectomy in three. Technical success was 100%. There were no instances of filter retention or arterial trauma due to filter manipulation. Distal embolization was noted in four patients (6%), of whom two had AMI. All large emboli were retrieved using catheter aspiration devices, but one small distal embolus was left untreated with no clinical consequences. Two patients had vessel spasm treated by nitroglycerin. Macroscopic debris was noted in 43 patients (66%) and was major in 21 (49%) or minor in 22 (51%). Of the patients with AMI, five (29%) required exploratory laparotomy and four (23%) had bowel resection. Eight additional patients (12%) had early complications (five CMI, three AMI), including cardiac complications, brachial hematoma, acute cholecystitis, and acute respiratory distress syndrome in two patients each. There were no deaths among CMI patients and two early deaths (12%) among those who had AMI. Conclusions: Use of EPDs during SMA stenting is safe and feasible with a two-wire technique. Large macroscopic debris was noted in one-third of the patients when the filter was applied selectively in patients with acute symptoms, occlusions, or severely calcified lesions. Despite the use of EPD, distal embolization occurred in 6% of patients and was successfully treated using catheter aspiration devices.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • Chronic mesenteric ischemia
  • Embolic protection
  • Endovascular treatment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this