Literature DB >> 24989143

Yttrium-90 resin microsphere radioembolization using an antireflux catheter: an alternative to traditional coil embolization for nontarget protection.

Maud M Morshedi1, Michael Bauman, Steven C Rose, Steven G Kikolski.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Serious complications can result from nontarget embolization during yttrium-90 (Y-90) transarterial radioembolization. Hepatoenteric artery coil embolization has been traditionally performed to prevent nontarget radioembolization. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved Surefire Infusion System (SIS) catheter, designed to prevent reflux, is an alternative to coils. The hypothesis that quantifiable SIS procedural parameters are comparable to coil embolization was tested.
METHODS: Fourteen patients aged 36-79 years with colorectal, neuroendocrine, hepatocellular, and other predominantly bilobar hepatic tumors who underwent resin microsphere Y-90 radioembolization using only the SIS catheter (n = 7) versus only detachable coils (n = 7) for nontarget protection were reviewed retrospectively. Procedure time, fluoroscopy time, contrast dose, radiation dose, and cost were evaluated.
RESULTS: Multivariate analysis identified significant cohort differences in the procedural parameters evaluated (F(10, 3) = 10.39, p = 0.04). Between-group comparisons of the pretreatment planning procedure in the SIS catheter group compared to the coil embolization group demonstrated a significant reduction in procedure time (102.6 vs. 192.1 min, respectively, p = 0.0004), fluoroscopy time (14.3 vs. 49.7 min, respectively, p = 0.0016), and contrast material dose (mean dose of 174.3 vs. 265.0 mL, respectively, p = 0.0098). Procedural parameters were not significantly different between the two groups during subsequent dose delivery procedures. Overall cost of combined first-time radioembolization procedures was significantly less in the SIS group ($4252) compared to retrievable coil embolization ($11,123; p = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The SIS catheter results in a reduction in procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast material dose and may be an attractive cost-effective alternative to detachable coil embolization for prevention of nontarget radioembolization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24989143     DOI: 10.1007/s00270-014-0941-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol        ISSN: 0174-1551            Impact factor:   2.740


  4 in total

Review 1.  Transcatheter embolization therapy in liver cancer: an update of clinical evidences.

Authors:  Yì-Xiáng J Wáng; Thierry De Baere; Jean-Marc Idée; Sébastien Ballet
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 5.087

2.  Innovation in catheter design for intra-arterial liver cancer treatments results in favorable particle-fluid dynamics.

Authors:  Andor F van den Hoven; Marnix G E H Lam; Shaphan Jernigan; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Gregory D Buckner
Journal:  J Exp Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2015-08-01

Review 3.  Radioembolization: Is Prophylactic Embolization of Hepaticoenteric Arteries Necessary? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Alicia S Borggreve; Anadeijda J E M C Landman; Coco M J Vissers; Charlotte D De Jong; Marnix G E H Lam; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Jip F Prince
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 2.740

4.  Approaches for safe transarterial chemoembolization of multifocal hepatocellular carcinoma with retrograde flow in a retroportal artery.

Authors:  Souheil Saddekni; Amr Soliman Moustafa; Sherif Moawad; Khalid Mahmoud; Basant Farouk Hamed; Ahmed Kamel Abdel-Aal
Journal:  Radiol Case Rep       Date:  2017-12-01
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.