Back

Impact of shaggy aorta on intraoperative cerebral embolism during carotid artery stenting

Osipova, O. S.; Bugurov, S. V.; Saaya, S. B.; Gostev, A. A.; Cheban, A. V.; Ignatenko, P. V.; Karpenko, A. A.

2022-05-03 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2022.05.02.22274007 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCareful selection of patients for carotid stenting is necessary. We suggest that patients with a shaggy aorta syndrome may have a higher risk of perioperative embolic complications. MethodsThe study is a subanalysis of the SIBERIA Trial. We included 72 patients undergoing transfemoral carotid artery stenting. All patients had an MRI DWI and a clinical neurological examination two days before and on the second and 30th days after the intervention. Results46 patients had shaggy aorta syndrome. Intraoperative embolisms were recorded in 82.6% and 46.1% of patients with and without shaggy aorta syndrome, respectively (p=0.001). New asymptomatic ischemic brain lesions in the postoperative period occurred in 78.3% and in 26.9% of patients with and without shaggy aorta syndrome, respectively (p=0.000). 3 (6.5%) cases of stroke within 30 days after the procedure were observed only in patients with shaggy aorta syndrome. Shaggy aorta syndrome (OR 5.54 [1.83:16.7], p=0.001) and aortic arch ulceration (OR 6.67 [1.19: 37.3], p = 0.02) were independently associated with cerebral embolism. Shaggy aorta syndrome (OR 9.77 [3.14-30.37], p=0.000) and aortic arch ulceration (OR 12.9 [2.3: 72.8], p = 0.003) were independently associated with ipsilateral new asymptomatic ischemic brain lesions. ConclusionsShaggy aorta syndrome and aortic arch ulceration significantly increase the odds of intraoperative embolism and new asymptomatic ischemic brain lesions. Carotid endarterectomy or transcervical carotid stent should be selected in the presence of aortic ulceration.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.