| Literature DB >> 27896226 |
Umberto Marcello Bracale1, Gaetano Vitale2, Guido Bajardi3, Donatella Narese4, Ettore Dinoto3, Anna Maria Giribono1, Doriana Ferrara1, Luca Del Guercio1, Massimo Midiri4, Felice Pecoraro3.
Abstract
Femoro-popliteal PTA for the treatment of critical limb ischemia is frequently associated with unsatisfactory procedural success rates while directional atherectomy (DCA) has improved success rate since claudicant patients undergoing percutaneous treatment of femoro-popliteal obstructive disease. The aim of this prospective study is to evaluate the safety, efficacy and procedural success of DCA, at one year, in the percutaneous treatment of femoro-popliteal obstructive disease in patients with critical limb ischemia.Entities:
Keywords: Turbohawk device; atherectomy; critical limb ischemia; endovascular treatment
Year: 2016 PMID: 27896226 PMCID: PMC5120749
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Med UniSa ISSN: 2239-9747
Fig. 1Illustration of the Turbohawk™ device. A. Multiple preocclusive SFA stenosis. B. Deployment of distal protection device. C. Plaque excision with Turbohawk™ (description of the technique in the text).
Fig. 2A. intraoperative image showing Turbohawk™ device and distal protection filter SpiderFX™. B. Long trimmed plaque.
Fig. 3Intraoperative angiogram. A. Superficial femoral and popliteal artery occlusion. B. Femoro-popliteal pre-dilatation. C. Postprocedural result after plaque excision with Turbohawk.
DEMOGRAPHIC AND CLINICAL DATA
| N= 18 (%) | |
|---|---|
| Male | 12 (66.7) |
| Age, years (Median/IQ) | 68.1 (56–83) |
| Hypertension (%/N) | 16 (89) |
| Hypercholesterolemia (%/N) | 12 (67) |
| Diabetes Mellitus (%/N) | 14 (78) |
| Smoking history (%/N) | 12 (67) |
| Chronic renal disease (%/N) | 2 (11) |
| Rutherford 4 (%/N) | 2 (11) |
| Rutherford 5 (%/N) | 6 (33) |
| Rutherford 6 (%/N) | 10 (56) |
| CVD (%/N) | 4 (22) |
PROCEDURAL CHARACTERISTICS
| N = 18 (%) | |
|---|---|
| Pre-dilation | 7 (38.9) |
| Distal protection | 18(100) |
| Reference Vessel Diameter (mm) (Mean ± SD) | 4.1 ± 1.2 |
| Lesion Length (mm) (Mean ± SD) | 123 ± 55 |
| Post-dilation | 3 (16.7) |
| Bailout stenting (%) | 0 (0) |
| Procedural success | 18 (100) |
Fig. 4Macroscopic embolic material after distal embolic protection filter removal.