治疗未破裂的 V3-V4 椎动脉夹层的双 LVIS 装置和单一血流分流支架的临床比较研究。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Shuhai Long, Shuailong Shi, Zhike Zhang, Qi Tian, Zhuangzhuang Wei, Ji Ma, Ye Wang, Jie Yang, Xinwei Han, Tengfei Li
{"title":"治疗未破裂的 V3-V4 椎动脉夹层的双 LVIS 装置和单一血流分流支架的临床比较研究。","authors":"Shuhai Long, Shuailong Shi, Zhike Zhang, Qi Tian, Zhuangzhuang Wei, Ji Ma, Ye Wang, Jie Yang, Xinwei Han, Tengfei Li","doi":"10.1177/15910199241254864","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of using overlapping low-profile visualized intraluminal support (LVIS) devices and flow diversion (FD) for the treatment of unruptured vertebral artery dissection (VAD) in the V3-V4 segments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The clinical and imaging data of 71 patients with unruptured VAD in the V3-V4 segments who underwent either dual LVIS stenting (d-LVIS group) or single FD stenting (FD group) at our center from September 2014 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Immediate postoperative angiography revealed no significant difference in the degree of occlusion between the two groups in treating vertebral artery dissecting aneurysms (with or without noncompact coiling). However, the d-LVIS group had significantly higher fluoroscopy exposure time and total radiation exposure dose compared to the FD group. During the perioperative period, two cases of pontine infarction and one case of acute thrombosis were encountered. One patient died from subarachnoid hemorrhage during the follow-up period. For dissecting the aneurysm, angiographic follow-up (8.56 ± 1.96 months) showed similar healing outcomes between the two groups (with or without noncompact coiling). However, seven patients (7/40, 17.5%) showed poor healing and one patient showed mild in-stent stenosis. For simple dissection, angiographic follow-up (8.78 ± 1.83 months) showed patent lumens in both groups, with all dissections healing well, and two patients having mild in-stent stenosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both methods could effectively treat unruptured VAD in V3-V4 segments. Nevertheless, simple FD implantation is relatively easier to perform and involves lower radiation exposure.</p>","PeriodicalId":49174,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Neuroradiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A clinical comparative study of dual LVIS devices and single flow diversion stenting for the treatment of unruptured V3-V4 vertebral artery dissection.\",\"authors\":\"Shuhai Long, Shuailong Shi, Zhike Zhang, Qi Tian, Zhuangzhuang Wei, Ji Ma, Ye Wang, Jie Yang, Xinwei Han, Tengfei Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15910199241254864\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of using overlapping low-profile visualized intraluminal support (LVIS) devices and flow diversion (FD) for the treatment of unruptured vertebral artery dissection (VAD) in the V3-V4 segments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The clinical and imaging data of 71 patients with unruptured VAD in the V3-V4 segments who underwent either dual LVIS stenting (d-LVIS group) or single FD stenting (FD group) at our center from September 2014 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Immediate postoperative angiography revealed no significant difference in the degree of occlusion between the two groups in treating vertebral artery dissecting aneurysms (with or without noncompact coiling). However, the d-LVIS group had significantly higher fluoroscopy exposure time and total radiation exposure dose compared to the FD group. During the perioperative period, two cases of pontine infarction and one case of acute thrombosis were encountered. One patient died from subarachnoid hemorrhage during the follow-up period. For dissecting the aneurysm, angiographic follow-up (8.56 ± 1.96 months) showed similar healing outcomes between the two groups (with or without noncompact coiling). However, seven patients (7/40, 17.5%) showed poor healing and one patient showed mild in-stent stenosis. For simple dissection, angiographic follow-up (8.78 ± 1.83 months) showed patent lumens in both groups, with all dissections healing well, and two patients having mild in-stent stenosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both methods could effectively treat unruptured VAD in V3-V4 segments. Nevertheless, simple FD implantation is relatively easier to perform and involves lower radiation exposure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interventional Neuroradiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interventional Neuroradiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15910199241254864\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15910199241254864","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在比较使用重叠低位可视化腔内支撑(LVIS)装置和血流分流(FD)治疗V3-V4段未破裂椎动脉夹层(VAD)的疗效和安全性:回顾性分析2014年9月至2021年12月在本中心接受双LVIS支架植入术(d-LVIS组)或单FD支架植入术(FD组)的71例V3-V4段未破裂VAD患者的临床和影像学数据:结果:术后即刻血管造影显示,在治疗椎动脉夹层动脉瘤(无论是否进行非紧密性卷绕)方面,两组患者的闭塞程度无明显差异。然而,与 FD 组相比,d-LVIS 组的透视曝光时间和总辐射剂量明显更高。在围手术期,发生了两例桥脑梗死和一例急性血栓形成。一名患者在随访期间死于蛛网膜下腔出血。在剥离动脉瘤方面,血管造影随访(8.56 ± 1.96 个月)显示,两组患者(使用或不使用非紧密性卷绕)的愈合效果相似。但有七名患者(7/40,17.5%)愈合不良,一名患者出现轻度支架内狭窄。对于单纯夹层,血管造影随访(8.78 ± 1.83个月)显示两组患者的管腔均通畅,所有夹层均愈合良好,两名患者出现轻度支架内狭窄:结论:两种方法都能有效治疗V3-V4段未破裂的VAD。结论:两种方法都能有效治疗 V3-V4 段未破裂的 VAD,但简单的 FD 植入术相对更容易操作,辐射量也更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A clinical comparative study of dual LVIS devices and single flow diversion stenting for the treatment of unruptured V3-V4 vertebral artery dissection.

Purpose: This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of using overlapping low-profile visualized intraluminal support (LVIS) devices and flow diversion (FD) for the treatment of unruptured vertebral artery dissection (VAD) in the V3-V4 segments.

Methods: The clinical and imaging data of 71 patients with unruptured VAD in the V3-V4 segments who underwent either dual LVIS stenting (d-LVIS group) or single FD stenting (FD group) at our center from September 2014 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed.

Results: Immediate postoperative angiography revealed no significant difference in the degree of occlusion between the two groups in treating vertebral artery dissecting aneurysms (with or without noncompact coiling). However, the d-LVIS group had significantly higher fluoroscopy exposure time and total radiation exposure dose compared to the FD group. During the perioperative period, two cases of pontine infarction and one case of acute thrombosis were encountered. One patient died from subarachnoid hemorrhage during the follow-up period. For dissecting the aneurysm, angiographic follow-up (8.56 ± 1.96 months) showed similar healing outcomes between the two groups (with or without noncompact coiling). However, seven patients (7/40, 17.5%) showed poor healing and one patient showed mild in-stent stenosis. For simple dissection, angiographic follow-up (8.78 ± 1.83 months) showed patent lumens in both groups, with all dissections healing well, and two patients having mild in-stent stenosis.

Conclusion: Both methods could effectively treat unruptured VAD in V3-V4 segments. Nevertheless, simple FD implantation is relatively easier to perform and involves lower radiation exposure.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Interventional Neuroradiology
Interventional Neuroradiology CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
11.80%
发文量
192
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Interventional Neuroradiology (INR) is a peer-reviewed clinical practice journal documenting the current state of interventional neuroradiology worldwide. INR publishes original clinical observations, descriptions of new techniques or procedures, case reports, and articles on the ethical and social aspects of related health care. Original research published in INR is related to the practice of interventional neuroradiology...
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信