Objective: Coil embolization of aortic side branches has been additionally performed to prevent type II endoleak during EVAR in our institute. In this study, we evaluated the predictive factors of the possibility for coil embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) and lumbar artery (LA) during EVAR. Methods: Seventy-four EVAR patients during June 2015 and April 2019 were included in the study. The coil embolization procedural time for one vessel is limited to 10 min. Aortic side branches were selected with 4 Fr Shepherd hook type catheter (Medikit, Tokyo, Japan) and were embolized with Interlock (Boston Scientific, MA, USA) via microcatheter. As predictive factors, internal diameter of aortic side branches and the aortic diameter perpendicular to the origin of LA (aortic diameter) were evaluated. Results: Coil embolization was tried for 52 patent IMAs and all IMAs except two IMAs with ostial stenosis were successfully coil embolized (96.2%). Totally 190 LAs were patent and coil embolization was tried for 144 LAs. Among 144 LAs, 106 LAs (73.6%) were successfully coil embolized and the diameter was significantly longer (2.30±0.51 mm vs. 2.04±0.41 mm, p=0.007) and aortic dimeter was significantly shorter (30.0±8.1 mm vs. 40.5±11.6 mm, p<0.001) in successfully embolized LAs. Cut off value of successful LA coil embolization was 2.06 mm for internal diameter and 36.1 mm for aortic diameter by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Successful coil embolization rate for LAs with internal diameter longer than 2.0 mm and aortic diameter less than 36.2 mm was 90% (72 among 80 LAs). Conclusion: Coil embolization during EVAR for IMA was highly successful, if there was no calcified ostial stenosis. LA embolization was feasible especially for LAs with internal diameter ≥2.0 mm and aortic diameter ≤36.1 mm. This information would be useful to select the target vessel for aortic side branches coil embolization during EVAR. (This is a translation of Jpn J Vasc Surg 2019; 28: 389-396.).
Objective: Coil embolization of aortic side branches has been additionally performed to prevent type II endoleak during EVAR in our institute. In this study, we evaluated the predictive factors of the possibility for coil embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) and lumbar artery (LA) during EVAR. Methods: Seventy-four EVAR patients during June 2015 and April 2019 were included in the study. The coil embolization procedural time for one vessel is limited to 10 min. Aortic side branches were selected with 4 Fr Shepherd hook type catheter (Medikit, Tokyo, Japan) and were embolized with Interlock (Boston Scientific, MA, USA) via microcatheter. As predictive factors, internal diameter of aortic side branches and the aortic diameter perpendicular to the origin of LA (aortic diameter) were evaluated. Results:Coil embolization was tried for 52 patent IMAs and all IMAs except two IMAs with ostial stenosis were successfully coil embolized (96.2%). Totally 190 LAs were patent and coil embolization was tried for 144 LAs. Among 144 LAs, 106 LAs (73.6%) were successfully coil embolized and the diameter was significantly longer (2.30±0.51 mm vs. 2.04±0.41 mm, p=0.007) and aortic dimeter was significantly shorter (30.0±8.1 mm vs. 40.5±11.6 mm, p<0.001) in successfully embolized LAs. Cut off value of successful LA coil embolization was 2.06 mm for internal diameter and 36.1 mm for aortic diameter by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Successful coil embolization rate for LAs with internal diameter longer than 2.0 mm and aortic diameter less than 36.2 mm was 90% (72 among 80 LAs). Conclusion:Coil embolization during EVAR for IMA was highly successful, if there was no calcified ostial stenosis. LA embolization was feasible especially for LAs with internal diameter ≥2.0 mm and aortic diameter ≤36.1 mm. This information would be useful to select the target vessel for aortic side branches coil embolization during EVAR. (This is a translation of Jpn J Vasc Surg 2019; 28: 389-396.).
Authors: Jesse M Manunga; Andrew Cragg; Ross Garberich; Jonathan A Urbach; Needa Skeik; Jason Alexander; Jessica Titus; Elliot Stephenson; Peter Alden; Timothy M Sullivan Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: Terhi Nevala; Fausto Biancari; Hannu Manninen; Pekka Matsi; Kimmo Mäkinen; Kari Ylönen; Jukka Perälä Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2009-12-21 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: René Müller-Wille; Sophie Schötz; Florian Zeman; Wibke Uller; Oliver Güntner; Karin Pfister; Piotr Kasprzak; Christian Stroszczynski; Walter A Wohlgemuth Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mario Alerci; Alessia Giamboni; Rolf Wyttenbach; Alessandra Pia Porretta; Francesco Antonucci; Marcel Bogen; Marco Toderi; Adriano Guerra; Fabio Sartori; Paolo Tutta; Luigi Inglese; Costanzo Limoni; Augusto Gallino; Ludwig K Von Segesser Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Carlos H Timaran; Takao Ohki; Soo J Rhee; Frank J Veith; Nicholas J Gargiulo; Hisako Toriumi; Mahmood B Malas; William D Suggs; Reese A Wain; Evan C Lipsitz Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Duncan J Parry; David O Kessel; Iain Robertson; Lucy Denton; Jai V Patel; David C Berridge; Ralph C Kester; David J A Scott Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Klaas H J Ultee; Stefan Büttner; Roy Huurman; Frederico Bastos Gonçalves; Sanne E Hoeks; Wichor M Bramer; Marc L Schermerhorn; Hence J M Verhagen Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 7.069