Runail Ratnani1, Patrick D Sutphin2, Vivek Koshti1, Harold Park1, Murthy Chamarthy1, John Battaile3, Sanjeeva P Kalva1. 1. Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75390. 2. Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75390. Electronic address: psutphin@gmail.com. 3. Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75390.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate effectiveness of the polytetrafluoroethylene-covered nitinol mesh microvascular plug (MVP) and compare it with other devices in pulmonary arteriovenous malformation (PAVM) embolization in patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients (average age 35 y; range, 15-56 y) with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) and de novo PAVM embolization with at least 1 MVP between November 2015 and May 2017 were retrospectively evaluated. Retrospective data were also obtained from prior embolization procedures in the same patient population with other embolic devices dating back to 2008. Technical success, complications, PAVM persistence rates, and category of persistence were analyzed. RESULTS: In 25 patients, 157 PAVMs were treated: 92 with MVP, 35 with AMPLATZER vascular plug (AVP), 6 with AVP plus coils, and 24 with coils. The per-PAVM technical success rates were 100% with MVP; 97%, AVP; 100%, AVP plus coils; and 100%, coils. PAVM persistence rates and median follow-up were as follows: MVP, 2% (1/92) (510 d); AVP, 15% (3/20) (1,447 d); AVP plus coils, 20% (1/5) (1,141 d); coils, 46.7% (7/15) (1,141 d). Persistence owing to recanalization for MVP, AVP, AVP plus coils, and coils was 2%, 15%, 0%, and 33%. No difference was found between persistence rates of MVP vs AVP (P = .098). Embolization with a vascular plug (MVP or AVP) with or without coils had a statistically significant lower persistence rate (5.4%) than embolization with coils alone (46.7%) (P = .022). CONCLUSIONS: PAVM embolization with MVP had a high technical success rate and a low persistence rate comparable to AVP and lower than coil embolization alone.
PURPOSE: To evaluate effectiveness of the polytetrafluoroethylene-covered nitinol mesh microvascular plug (MVP) and compare it with other devices in pulmonary arteriovenous malformation (PAVM) embolization in patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients (average age 35 y; range, 15-56 y) with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) and de novo PAVM embolization with at least 1 MVP between November 2015 and May 2017 were retrospectively evaluated. Retrospective data were also obtained from prior embolization procedures in the same patient population with other embolic devices dating back to 2008. Technical success, complications, PAVM persistence rates, and category of persistence were analyzed. RESULTS: In 25 patients, 157 PAVMs were treated: 92 with MVP, 35 with AMPLATZER vascular plug (AVP), 6 with AVP plus coils, and 24 with coils. The per-PAVM technical success rates were 100% with MVP; 97%, AVP; 100%, AVP plus coils; and 100%, coils. PAVM persistence rates and median follow-up were as follows: MVP, 2% (1/92) (510 d); AVP, 15% (3/20) (1,447 d); AVP plus coils, 20% (1/5) (1,141 d); coils, 46.7% (7/15) (1,141 d). Persistence owing to recanalization for MVP, AVP, AVP plus coils, and coils was 2%, 15%, 0%, and 33%. No difference was found between persistence rates of MVP vs AVP (P = .098). Embolization with a vascular plug (MVP or AVP) with or without coils had a statistically significant lower persistence rate (5.4%) than embolization with coils alone (46.7%) (P = .022). CONCLUSIONS: PAVM embolization with MVP had a high technical success rate and a low persistence rate comparable to AVP and lower than coil embolization alone.
Authors: Abdul Hakim Almakadma; Trevor Simard; Dhruv Sarma; Abdul Rahman Akkawi; Apurva Bhavana Challa; Nathaniel Taggart; Sanjay Misra; David R Holmes Journal: JACC Case Rep Date: 2022-02-02