Bernardo C Mendes1, Gustavo S Oderich2, Mark D Fleming1, Sanjay Misra3, Audra A Duncan1, Manju Kalra1, Stephen Cha4, Peter Gloviczki1. 1. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. 2. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. Electronic address: oderich.gustavo@mayo.edu. 3. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence and clinical significance of embolic events in patients undergoing endovascular femoropopliteal interventions with or without embolic protection devices (EPDs). METHODS: We reviewed the clinical data of 566 patients treated by 836 endovascular femoropopliteal interventions for lower extremity claudication (46%) or critical limb ischemia (54%) from 2002 to 2012. Outcomes were analyzed in 74 patients/87 interventions performed with EPDs (Spider Rx; Covidien, Plymouth, Minn) and 513 patients/749 interventions performed without EPDs. TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II classification, runoff scores, and embolic events were analyzed. End points were morbidity, mortality, reintervention, patency, and major amputation rates. RESULTS: Both groups had similar demographics, indications, cardiovascular risk factors, and runoff scores, but patients treated with EPDs had significantly (P < .05) longer lesions (109 ± 94 mm vs 85 ± 76 mm) and more often had occlusions (64% vs 30%) and TASC C/D lesions (56% vs 30%). Embolic events occurred in 35 of 836 interventions (4%), including two (2%) performed with EPD and 33 (4%) without EPD (P = .35). Macroscopic debris was noted in 59 (68%) filter baskets. Embolic events were not associated with lesion length, TASC classification, runoff scores, treatment type, or indication but were independently associated with occlusion. Patients who had embolization required more reinterventions (20% vs 3%; P < .001) and major amputations at 30 days (11% vs 3%; P = .02). There was no difference in hospital stay (2.4 ± 4 days vs 1.6 ± 2 days; P = .08), reintervention (2% vs 4%), and major amputation (1% vs 4%) among patients treated with or without EPD, respectively. The two patients who developed embolization with EPDs had no clinical sequela and required no reintervention. Most emboli were successfully treated by catheter aspiration or thrombolysis, but eight patients (24%) treated without EPD required prolonged hospital stay, seven (21%) had multiple reinterventions, one (3%) had unanticipated major amputation, and one (3%) died from hemorrhagic complications of thrombolysis. Median follow-up was 20 months. At 2 years, primary patency and freedom from reintervention was similar for TASC A/B and TASC C/D lesions treated with or without EPDs. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of embolization are low in patients undergoing endovascular femoropopliteal interventions with (4%) or without (2%) EPD. Embolization is more frequent in patients with occlusions. While emboli in patients with EPD had no clinical sequel, those treated without EPD required multiple reinterventions in 21% or resulted in major amputation or death in 3%. Late outcomes were similar in patients treated with or without EPDs.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence and clinical significance of embolic events in patients undergoing endovascular femoropopliteal interventions with or without embolic protection devices (EPDs). METHODS: We reviewed the clinical data of 566 patients treated by 836 endovascular femoropopliteal interventions for lower extremity claudication (46%) or critical limb ischemia (54%) from 2002 to 2012. Outcomes were analyzed in 74 patients/87 interventions performed with EPDs (Spider Rx; Covidien, Plymouth, Minn) and 513 patients/749 interventions performed without EPDs. TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II classification, runoff scores, and embolic events were analyzed. End points were morbidity, mortality, reintervention, patency, and major amputation rates. RESULTS: Both groups had similar demographics, indications, cardiovascular risk factors, and runoff scores, but patients treated with EPDs had significantly (P < .05) longer lesions (109 ± 94 mm vs 85 ± 76 mm) and more often had occlusions (64% vs 30%) and TASC C/D lesions (56% vs 30%). Embolic events occurred in 35 of 836 interventions (4%), including two (2%) performed with EPD and 33 (4%) without EPD (P = .35). Macroscopic debris was noted in 59 (68%) filter baskets. Embolic events were not associated with lesion length, TASC classification, runoff scores, treatment type, or indication but were independently associated with occlusion. Patients who had embolization required more reinterventions (20% vs 3%; P < .001) and major amputations at 30 days (11% vs 3%; P = .02). There was no difference in hospital stay (2.4 ± 4 days vs 1.6 ± 2 days; P = .08), reintervention (2% vs 4%), and major amputation (1% vs 4%) among patients treated with or without EPD, respectively. The two patients who developed embolization with EPDs had no clinical sequela and required no reintervention. Most emboli were successfully treated by catheter aspiration or thrombolysis, but eight patients (24%) treated without EPD required prolonged hospital stay, seven (21%) had multiple reinterventions, one (3%) had unanticipated major amputation, and one (3%) died from hemorrhagic complications of thrombolysis. Median follow-up was 20 months. At 2 years, primary patency and freedom from reintervention was similar for TASC A/B and TASC C/D lesions treated with or without EPDs. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of embolization are low in patients undergoing endovascular femoropopliteal interventions with (4%) or without (2%) EPD. Embolization is more frequent in patients with occlusions. While emboli in patients with EPD had no clinical sequel, those treated without EPD required multiple reinterventions in 21% or resulted in major amputation or death in 3%. Late outcomes were similar in patients treated with or without EPDs.
Authors: Donald S Baim; Dennis Wahr; Barry George; Martin B Leon; Joel Greenberg; Donald E Cutlip; Unsal Kaya; Jeffrey J Popma; Kalon K L Ho; Richard E Kuntz Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rajeev Suri; Michael H Wholey; Darren Postoak; Ryan T Hagino; Boulos Toursarkissian Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: William A Gray; L Nelson Hopkins; Sanjay Yadav; Thomas Davis; Mark Wholey; Richard Atkinson; Alberto Cremonesi; Ronald Fairman; Gary Walker; Patrick Verta; Jeff Popma; Renu Virmani; David J Cohen Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Andreas Kastrup; Klaus Gröschel; Hilmar Krapf; Bernhard R Brehm; Johannes Dichgans; Jörg B Schulz Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-02-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Nicolas W Shammas; Gail A Shammas; Eric J Dippel; Michael Jerin; Waheeb J Shammas Journal: J Invasive Cardiol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 2.022
Authors: Claudius W König; Benjamin Pusich; Gunnar Tepe; Hans-Peter Wendel; Ulrich Hahn; Wilke Schneider; Claus D Claussen; Stephan H Duda Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2003 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Paul P Heideman; Mohammad Reza Rajebi; Michael A McKusick; Haraldur Bjarnason; Gustavo S Oderich; Jeremy L Friese; Mark D Fleming; Andrew H Stockland; William S Harmsen; Jay Mandrekar; Sanjay Misra Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 3.464