PURPOSE: The latest-generation Amplatzer vascular plug (AVP), the AVP 4, is designed for embolization of smaller vessels without a sheath or guiding catheter. This study evaluated the AVP 4 in peripheral vascular embolization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Embolization with the AVP 4 was attempted in 13 patients (11 men) for trauma (n = 7) and other indications (n = 6). Technical success rate, vascular bed, size of catheter, and number and size of AVP 4 devices were recorded. RESULTS: Embolization with the AVP 4 was successful in 10 of 13 patients (77%). In trauma patients (n = 7), embolization of the splenic artery (n = 4), lumbar artery (n = 2), and superior gluteal artery (n = 1) was performed. In other patients, preoperative embolization of the right portal vein (n = 1), a gastric varix after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation (n = 1), an aneurysm of the internal iliac artery (n = 1), and inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) embolization before aneurysm repair (n = 2) was performed. Sizes of the AVP 4 were 4 mm (n = 6), 6 mm (n = 5), and 8 mm (n = 1). In all patients, 4- and 5-F catheters with a 0.038-inch minimum inner lumen were used. In one patient, IMA embolization was attempted via a femoral approach but was unsuccessful as a result of repeated catheter tip dislocation because of acute angle; coils were used instead. CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral embolization with the AVP 4 was successful in the majority of patients. Future comparative study is necessary to evaluate this device's benefits over other embolization materials such as earlier-generation AVPs or microcoils. Copyright (c) 2010 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: The latest-generation Amplatzer vascular plug (AVP), the AVP 4, is designed for embolization of smaller vessels without a sheath or guiding catheter. This study evaluated the AVP 4 in peripheral vascular embolization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Embolization with the AVP 4 was attempted in 13 patients (11 men) for trauma (n = 7) and other indications (n = 6). Technical success rate, vascular bed, size of catheter, and number and size of AVP 4 devices were recorded. RESULTS: Embolization with the AVP 4 was successful in 10 of 13 patients (77%). In traumapatients (n = 7), embolization of the splenic artery (n = 4), lumbar artery (n = 2), and superior gluteal artery (n = 1) was performed. In other patients, preoperative embolization of the right portal vein (n = 1), a gastric varix after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation (n = 1), an aneurysm of the internal iliac artery (n = 1), and inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) embolization before aneurysm repair (n = 2) was performed. Sizes of the AVP 4 were 4 mm (n = 6), 6 mm (n = 5), and 8 mm (n = 1). In all patients, 4- and 5-F catheters with a 0.038-inch minimum inner lumen were used. In one patient, IMA embolization was attempted via a femoral approach but was unsuccessful as a result of repeated catheter tip dislocation because of acute angle; coils were used instead. CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral embolization with the AVP 4 was successful in the majority of patients. Future comparative study is necessary to evaluate this device's benefits over other embolization materials such as earlier-generation AVPs or microcoils. Copyright (c) 2010 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.