3.8 Article

Successful endovascular treatment in patients with acute thromboembolic ischemia of the lower limb including the crural arteries

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 145-152

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.4330/wjc.v10.i10.145

关键词

Thrombus aspiration; Rotarex (R) S mechanical debulking catheter; Crural arteries; Lower limb; Critical limb ischemia; Acute occlusion; Duplex sonography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM To examine the efficacy and safety of the 6 French (6F) Rotarex (R) S catheter system in patients with acute limb ischemia (ALI) involving thromboembolic occlusion of the proximal and mid-crural vessels. METHODS The files of patients in our department with ALI between 2015 and 2017 were examined. In seven patients, the Rotarex (R) S catheter was used in the proximal segment of the crural arteries. Data related to the clinical examination, Doppler sonography, angiography and follow-up from these patients were further used for analysis. RESULTS Two patients (29%) had thrombotic occlusion of the common femoral artery, and the remaining five exhibited thrombosis of the superficial femoral artery and popliteal artery. Mechanical thrombectomy was performed in all cases using a 6F Rotarex (R) S catheter. Additional Rotarex (R) S catheter thrombectomy due to remaining thrombus formation with no reflow was performed in the anterior tibial artery in two of seven cases (29%), in the tibiofibular tract and posterior tibial artery in two of seven cases (29%) and in the tibiofibular tract and fibular artery in the remaining three of seven cases (43%). Ischemic symptoms resolved promptly in all, and none of the patients experienced a procedural complication, such as crural vessel dissection, perforation or thrombus embolization. CONCLUSION Mechanical debulking using the 6F Rotarex (R) S catheter system may be a safe and effective treatment option in case of thrombotic or thromboembolic occlusion of the proximal and mid-portion of crural arteries.

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

3.8
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