Literature DB >> 24461861

Clinical significance of embolic events in patients undergoing endovascular femoropopliteal interventions with or without embolic protection devices.

Bernardo C Mendes1, Gustavo S Oderich2, Mark D Fleming1, Sanjay Misra3, Audra A Duncan1, Manju Kalra1, Stephen Cha4, Peter Gloviczki1.   

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.
Copyright © 2014 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24461861      PMCID: PMC4492297          DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2013.07.119

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Surg        ISSN: 0741-5214            Impact factor:   4.268


  22 in total

Review 1.  Recognition of the importance of embolization in atherosclerotic vascular disease.

Authors:  E J Topol; J S Yadav
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2000-02-08       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Randomized trial of a distal embolic protection device during percutaneous intervention of saphenous vein aorto-coronary bypass grafts.

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

3.  Distal embolic protection during femoropopliteal atherectomy.

Authors:  Rajeev Suri; Michael H Wholey; Darren Postoak; Ryan T Hagino; Boulos Toursarkissian
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Recommended standards for reports dealing with lower extremity ischemia: revised version.

Authors:  R B Rutherford; J D Baker; C Ernst; K W Johnston; J M Porter; S Ahn; D N Jones
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 4.268

5.  Protected carotid stenting in high-surgical-risk patients: the ARCHeR results.

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

Review 6.  Early outcome of carotid angioplasty and stenting with and without cerebral protection devices: a systematic review of the literature.

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

7.  Distal embolism during percutaneous revascularization of infra-aortic arterial occlusive disease: an underestimated phenomenon.

Authors:  Dimitris Karnabatidis; Konstantinos Katsanos; George C Kagadis; Panagiota Ravazoula; Athanasios Diamantopoulos; George C Nikiforidis; Dimitris Siablis
Journal:  J Endovasc Ther       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.487

8.  Protected carotid stenting: clinical advantages and complications of embolic protection devices in 442 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Alberto Cremonesi; Raffaella Manetti; Francesco Setacci; Carlo Setacci; Fausto Castriota
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2003-07-03       Impact factor: 7.914

9.  Predictors of distal embolization in peripheral percutaneous interventions: a report from a large peripheral vascular registry.

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

10.  Frequent embolization in peripheral angioplasty: detection with an embolism protection device (AngioGuard) and electron microscopy.

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

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Long Chronic Total Occlusions: Revascularization Strategies.

Authors:  Daniel Sheeran; Luke R Wilkins
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 1.513

2.  Impact of Chronic Kidney Disease on Clinical Outcomes of Endovascular Treatment for Femoropopliteal Arterial Disease.

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

3.  Use of Embolic Protection Devices in Peripheral Interventions.

Authors:  Martin G Radvany
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2017-05

4.  Percutaneous Aspiration Thrombectomy for Arterial Thromboembolism during Infrainguinal Endovascular Recanalization.

Authors:  Li-Ming Wei; Yue-Qi Zhu; Fang Liu; Pei-Lei Zhang; Xiao-Cong Li; Jun-Gong Zhao; Hai-Tao Lu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Embolic Protection in Complex Femoropopliteal Interventions: Safety, Efficacy and Predictors of Filter Macroembolization.

Authors:  Michael Czihal; Zeynep Findik; Christoph Bernau; Max Seidensticker; Jens Ricke; Ulrich Hoffmann; Marcus Treitl; Karla-Maria Treitl
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2020-12-06       Impact factor: 2.740

6.  Comparison and Analysis between the NAV6 Embolic Protection Filter and SpiderFX EPD Filter in Superficial Femoral Artery Lesions.

Authors:  Prakash Krishnan; Arthur Tarricone; Allen Gee; Serdar Farhan; Haroon Kamran; Annapoorna Kini; Samin Sharma
Journal:  J Interv Cardiol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 2.279

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.