See the published version of this preprint at CVIR Endovascular.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research Article
Francesco Giurazza
Cardarelli Hospital
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9080-8833
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Aim:
To describe a three years experience of peripheral arterial embolization with Micro Vascular Plug (MVP) (Medtronic, USA).
Materials and methods:
116 MVP have been released in 104 patients (67 males and 37 females; mean age 61.3 years). The pullback release technique was adopted in each case. The following parameters were investigated: angiographic appearance of the vascular injury, anticoagulation therapy at time of procedure, district, caliper of the target artery, course of the landing zone, additional embolics, technical and clinical success.
Technical success was defined as complete embolization without deployment of additional embolics.
Primary clinical success was considered as hemodynamic stability in emergency setting and resolution of the underlying vascular pathology in elective cases; secondary clinical success was considered clinical success after a second embolization session.
Results:
Vessel occlusion was achieved in 78 patients after MVP release, while in 26 subjects additional embolics were required; the overall technical success was 75%. Primary clinical success was 96.1%.
MVP was oversized between 30% and 40% compared to the target vessel caliper; MVP-3 and MVP-5 were the most frequently adopted in this sample
No statistical differences in terms of effectiveness were observed among patients assuming anticoagulation. A straight and longer landing zone were statistically associated with higher technical success compared to a curved and a shorter ones, respectively.
No clinically adverse events directly related to MVP device occurred; in 3 cases migration was registered without clinical complications.
Conclusion:
MVP is a safe and effective embolic device. Oversizing is recommended. While eventual concomitant anticoagulation therapy did not influence the technical outcome, straight course and length of the landing zone are essential parameters to evaluate before deployment.
Keywords
Micro Vascular Plug, embolization, hemorrhage, arterial
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at CVIR Endovascular.
Version 1
Posted 17 Mar, 2021
No community comments so far
Reviews received
Received 21 Apr, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 08 Mar, 2021
Editor assigned
On 08 Mar, 2021
First submitted
On 06 Mar, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at CVIR Endovascular.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Francesco Giurazza
Cardarelli Hospital
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9080-8833
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at CVIR Endovascular.
Version 1
Posted 17 Mar, 2021
No community comments so far
Reviews received
Received 21 Apr, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 08 Mar, 2021
Editor assigned
On 08 Mar, 2021
First submitted
On 06 Mar, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at CVIR Endovascular.
Aim:
To describe a three years experience of peripheral arterial embolization with Micro Vascular Plug (MVP) (Medtronic, USA).
Materials and methods:
116 MVP have been released in 104 patients (67 males and 37 females; mean age 61.3 years). The pullback release technique was adopted in each case. The following parameters were investigated: angiographic appearance of the vascular injury, anticoagulation therapy at time of procedure, district, caliper of the target artery, course of the landing zone, additional embolics, technical and clinical success.
Technical success was defined as complete embolization without deployment of additional embolics.
Primary clinical success was considered as hemodynamic stability in emergency setting and resolution of the underlying vascular pathology in elective cases; secondary clinical success was considered clinical success after a second embolization session.
Results:
Vessel occlusion was achieved in 78 patients after MVP release, while in 26 subjects additional embolics were required; the overall technical success was 75%. Primary clinical success was 96.1%.
MVP was oversized between 30% and 40% compared to the target vessel caliper; MVP-3 and MVP-5 were the most frequently adopted in this sample
No statistical differences in terms of effectiveness were observed among patients assuming anticoagulation. A straight and longer landing zone were statistically associated with higher technical success compared to a curved and a shorter ones, respectively.
No clinically adverse events directly related to MVP device occurred; in 3 cases migration was registered without clinical complications.
Conclusion:
MVP is a safe and effective embolic device. Oversizing is recommended. While eventual concomitant anticoagulation therapy did not influence the technical outcome, straight course and length of the landing zone are essential parameters to evaluate before deployment.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Loading...