4.7 Article

Amplatzer™ Vascular Plugs for Embolisation: A 10-Year Single-Centre Retrospective Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 12, Issue 21, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12216790

Keywords

Amplatzer((TM)) Vascular Plug; AVP; plug; embolisation; interventional radiology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the indications, effectiveness, and safety of Amplatzer Vascular Plugs (AVPs) in clinical practice. The results showed that AVPs have high success rates and low complication rates in the treatment of various diseases.
Our objective was to investigate the indications, effectiveness, and safety of Amplatzer (TM) Vascular Plugs (AVPs) in clinical practice. To retrospectively identify patients managed with AVPs at the Dijon University Hospital between January 2011 and April 2021, we searched materials vigilance registries and procedure reports. The 110 identified patients underwent 111 procedures with delivery of 202 AVPs into 118 vessels; 84% of the procedures were performed by radiologists with over 10 years' experience and 67% were scheduled. Varicocele, haemostasis, pelvic varicose veins, and arterio-venous dialysis fistulas accounted for 69% of procedures. The technical and clinical success rates were 99% and 97%, respectively. The single major complication was AVP migration in a high-flow internal iliac vein, with no residual abnormalities after successful device retrieval. Several AVPs and/or concomitant injection of coils or liquid agents were used in 80% of cases. The use of AVPs alone occurred chiefly for splenic artery embolisation in trauma patients and for collateral vein occlusion in dysfunctional arterio-venous dialysis fistulas. No cases of recanalisation occurred during the 19 +/- 29 month follow-ups. Based on their good safety and effectiveness profile, AVPs deserve to be part of the therapeutic armamentarium of every interventional radiologist.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available