4.2 Article

Percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy using Rotarex catheter in peripheral artery occlusion diseases - Experience from a single center

期刊

VASCULAR
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 199-203

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1708538118813239

关键词

Rotarex catheter; peripheral artery occlusion; embolization

资金

  1. Peking University Shougang Hospital [SGYYZ201610, 2012Y04, SGYYQ201605]
  2. National Key Research and Development Plan [2017YFC0113005]
  3. Peking University Shougang Hospital (2017-Hospital-Clinical-01)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims The aim of this retrospective single-center study was to analyze the immediate results, failures and complications of percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy using the Rotarex catheter in the treatment of peripheral artery occlusion. Methods In this study, we identified a total of 42 patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy using Rotarex catheter at our institution. Procedural outcomes and complications were evaluated. Results The cohort consisted of 42 patients (31 men and 11 women), aged 32-93 years (median 68 years). The number of external iliac artery occlusion was 5, with common femoral artery 5, superficial femoral artery 28, femoral profound artery 2, popliteal artery 12, and brachial artery 2. The causes of occlusion were thrombosis (29 cases, 69%), embolism (6 cases, 14%), and reocclusion after percutaneous intervention (7 cases, 17%). We achieved primary success in 100% of the patients with mechanical thrombectomy, associated with balloon angioplasty (40/42, 95.2%) and stent deployment (16/42, 38.1%). The median time of the interventional procedure was 145 min. We encountered lower percentage of distal embolization (2.4%) and artery dissection (2.4%) during usage of Rotarex catheter in our cohort. Conclusions Rotarex thrombectomy was a useful tool to recanalize occluded vessels with additional treatment such as balloon angioplasty or stent deployment, with a low rate of failures and complications. And prospective studies in this issue are recommended.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据