经脾门静脉入路后用凝胶泡沫封堵经脾束。

IF 1.2 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Meine Tc, Kretschmann N, Yerdelen Ss, Wacker Fk, Meyer Bc, Hinrichs Jb
{"title":"经脾门静脉入路后用凝胶泡沫封堵经脾束。","authors":"Meine Tc,&nbsp;Kretschmann N,&nbsp;Yerdelen Ss,&nbsp;Wacker Fk,&nbsp;Meyer Bc,&nbsp;Hinrichs Jb","doi":"10.1186/s42155-023-00383-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To assess the feasibility and safety of a gelfoam torpedo plugging technique for embolization of the transsplenic access channel in adult patients following transvenous portal vein interventions.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Between 09/2016 and 08/2021, an ultrasound guided transsplenic portalvenous access (TSPVA) was established in twenty-four adult patients with a 21-G needle and 4-F microsheath under ultrasound guidance. Afterwards, sheaths ranging from 4-F to 8-F were inserted as needed for the procedure. Following portal vein intervention, the splenic access tract was embolized with a gelfoam-based tract plugging (GFTP) technique. TSPVA and GFTP were performed twice in two patients. Patients' pre-interventional and procedural characteristics were analyzed to assess the feasibility and safety of the plugging technique according Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) classification system. Values are given as median (minimum;maximum). Subgroup analysis of intercostal vs. subcostal puncture site for TSPVA was performed using the two-sided Mann-Whitney-U test or Student's t-test and Fisher's exact test. Level of significance was p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study population's age was 56 (29;71) years and 54% were female patients. Primary liver disease was predominantly liver cirrhosis with 62% of the patients. Pre-interventional model for end-stage liver disease score was 9 (6;25), international normalized ratio was 1.15 (0.86;1.51), activated partial thromboplastin time was 33s (26s;52s) and platelet count was 88.000/µL (31.000;273.000/µL). Ascites was present in 76% of the cases. Craniocaudal spleen diameter was 17cm (10cm;25cm). Indication for TSPVA was assisted transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement in 16 cases and revision in two cases, portal vein stent placement in five cases and variceal embolization in three cases. TSPVA was successfully established in all interventions; interventional success rate was 85% (22/26). The splenic access time was 33min (10min;133min) and the total procedure time was 208min (110min;429min). Splenic access was performed with a subcostal route in 11 interventions and with an intercostal route in 15 interventions. Final sheath size was 4-F in 17 cases, 5-F in three cases, 6-F in five cases, 7-F in two cases and 8-F in one case. A median of two gelfoam cubes was used for GFTP. TSPVA- and GFTP-related complications occurred in 4 of 26 interventions (15%) with a subcapsular hematoma of the spleen in two patients (CIRSE grade 1), access-related infection in one patient (CIRSE grade 3) and both in one patient (CIRSE grade 3). In detail, one access-related complication occurred in a patient with subcostal TSPVA (CIRSE grade 1 complication) and the other three complications occurred in patients with intercostal TSPVA (one CIRSE grade 1 complication and two CIRSE grade 3 complication) (p = 0.614). No patient required interventional or surgical treatment due to puncture tract bleeding.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Gelfoam-based plugging of the puncture tract was feasible and safe for transsplenic access in adult patients undergoing percutaneous portal vein interventions. The lack of major bleeding complications and complete absorption of the gelatine sponge make it a safe alternative to transjugular and transhepatic access and re-interventions via the splenic route.</p>","PeriodicalId":52351,"journal":{"name":"CVIR Endovascular","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10352193/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transsplenic tract closure after transsplenic portalvenous access using gelfoam-based tract plugging.\",\"authors\":\"Meine Tc,&nbsp;Kretschmann N,&nbsp;Yerdelen Ss,&nbsp;Wacker Fk,&nbsp;Meyer Bc,&nbsp;Hinrichs Jb\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s42155-023-00383-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To assess the feasibility and safety of a gelfoam torpedo plugging technique for embolization of the transsplenic access channel in adult patients following transvenous portal vein interventions.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Between 09/2016 and 08/2021, an ultrasound guided transsplenic portalvenous access (TSPVA) was established in twenty-four adult patients with a 21-G needle and 4-F microsheath under ultrasound guidance. Afterwards, sheaths ranging from 4-F to 8-F were inserted as needed for the procedure. Following portal vein intervention, the splenic access tract was embolized with a gelfoam-based tract plugging (GFTP) technique. TSPVA and GFTP were performed twice in two patients. Patients' pre-interventional and procedural characteristics were analyzed to assess the feasibility and safety of the plugging technique according Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) classification system. Values are given as median (minimum;maximum). Subgroup analysis of intercostal vs. subcostal puncture site for TSPVA was performed using the two-sided Mann-Whitney-U test or Student's t-test and Fisher's exact test. Level of significance was p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study population's age was 56 (29;71) years and 54% were female patients. Primary liver disease was predominantly liver cirrhosis with 62% of the patients. Pre-interventional model for end-stage liver disease score was 9 (6;25), international normalized ratio was 1.15 (0.86;1.51), activated partial thromboplastin time was 33s (26s;52s) and platelet count was 88.000/µL (31.000;273.000/µL). Ascites was present in 76% of the cases. Craniocaudal spleen diameter was 17cm (10cm;25cm). Indication for TSPVA was assisted transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement in 16 cases and revision in two cases, portal vein stent placement in five cases and variceal embolization in three cases. TSPVA was successfully established in all interventions; interventional success rate was 85% (22/26). The splenic access time was 33min (10min;133min) and the total procedure time was 208min (110min;429min). Splenic access was performed with a subcostal route in 11 interventions and with an intercostal route in 15 interventions. Final sheath size was 4-F in 17 cases, 5-F in three cases, 6-F in five cases, 7-F in two cases and 8-F in one case. A median of two gelfoam cubes was used for GFTP. TSPVA- and GFTP-related complications occurred in 4 of 26 interventions (15%) with a subcapsular hematoma of the spleen in two patients (CIRSE grade 1), access-related infection in one patient (CIRSE grade 3) and both in one patient (CIRSE grade 3). In detail, one access-related complication occurred in a patient with subcostal TSPVA (CIRSE grade 1 complication) and the other three complications occurred in patients with intercostal TSPVA (one CIRSE grade 1 complication and two CIRSE grade 3 complication) (p = 0.614). No patient required interventional or surgical treatment due to puncture tract bleeding.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Gelfoam-based plugging of the puncture tract was feasible and safe for transsplenic access in adult patients undergoing percutaneous portal vein interventions. The lack of major bleeding complications and complete absorption of the gelatine sponge make it a safe alternative to transjugular and transhepatic access and re-interventions via the splenic route.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CVIR Endovascular\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10352193/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CVIR Endovascular\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-023-00383-w\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CVIR Endovascular","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-023-00383-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:评估明胶泡沫鱼雷封堵技术在成年患者经静脉门静脉介入后经脾通道栓塞的可行性和安全性。材料与方法:2016年9月至2021年8月,在超声引导下,用21-G针和4-F微鞘,对24例成人患者建立超声引导下经脾门静脉通道(TSPVA)。之后,根据需要插入4-F至8-F的鞘。门静脉介入后,用凝胶泡沫为基础的通道堵塞(GFTP)技术栓塞脾通路。2例患者行TSPVA和GFTP两次。根据欧洲心血管与介入放射学会(CIRSE)的分类系统,分析患者介入前和手术特点,评估封堵技术的可行性和安全性。数值以中位数(最小值;最大值)给出。采用双侧Mann-Whitney-U检验或Student's t检验和Fisher's精确检验对TSPVA肋间和肋下穿刺部位进行亚组分析。结果:研究人群年龄56岁(29;71)岁,女性患者占54%。原发性肝病以肝硬化为主,占62%。终末期肝病介入前模型评分为9分(6;25分),国际标准化比值为1.15分(0.86;1.51分),活化部分凝血活素时间为33秒(26;52秒),血小板计数为88.000/µL(31.000;273.000/µL)。76%的病例出现腹水。颅趾脾直径17cm (10cm;25cm)。经颈静脉肝内门静脉分流术16例,翻修术2例,门静脉支架置入术5例,静脉曲张栓塞术3例。在所有干预措施中均成功建立了TSPVA;介入成功率85%(22/26)。脾通道时间分别为33min (10min;133min),总手术时间分别为208min (110min;429min)。脾通路经肋下通路11例,经肋间通路15例。最终鞘层尺寸为4-F 17例,5-F 3例,6-F 5例,7-F 2例,8-F 1例。GFTP采用两个明胶泡沫立方体的中位数。26例干预中有4例(15%)发生TSPVA和gftp相关并发症,其中2例患者(CIRSE 1级)出现脾脏包膜下血肿,1例患者(CIRSE 3级)出现通路相关感染,1例患者(CIRSE 3级)出现TSPVA和gftp相关并发症。肋下TSPVA患者出现1例通路相关并发症(CIRSE 1级并发症),肋间TSPVA患者出现3例并发症(1例CIRSE 1级并发症和2例CIRSE 3级并发症)(p = 0.614)。无患者因穿刺道出血需要介入或手术治疗。结论:在经皮门静脉介入治疗的成人患者中,采用凝胶泡沫封堵穿刺道是可行且安全的。由于缺乏大出血并发症和明胶海绵的完全吸收,使其成为经颈静脉和经肝进入和经脾途径再次介入的安全选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Transsplenic tract closure after transsplenic portalvenous access using gelfoam-based tract plugging.

Transsplenic tract closure after transsplenic portalvenous access using gelfoam-based tract plugging.

Background: To assess the feasibility and safety of a gelfoam torpedo plugging technique for embolization of the transsplenic access channel in adult patients following transvenous portal vein interventions.

Materials and methods: Between 09/2016 and 08/2021, an ultrasound guided transsplenic portalvenous access (TSPVA) was established in twenty-four adult patients with a 21-G needle and 4-F microsheath under ultrasound guidance. Afterwards, sheaths ranging from 4-F to 8-F were inserted as needed for the procedure. Following portal vein intervention, the splenic access tract was embolized with a gelfoam-based tract plugging (GFTP) technique. TSPVA and GFTP were performed twice in two patients. Patients' pre-interventional and procedural characteristics were analyzed to assess the feasibility and safety of the plugging technique according Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) classification system. Values are given as median (minimum;maximum). Subgroup analysis of intercostal vs. subcostal puncture site for TSPVA was performed using the two-sided Mann-Whitney-U test or Student's t-test and Fisher's exact test. Level of significance was p < 0.05.

Results: The study population's age was 56 (29;71) years and 54% were female patients. Primary liver disease was predominantly liver cirrhosis with 62% of the patients. Pre-interventional model for end-stage liver disease score was 9 (6;25), international normalized ratio was 1.15 (0.86;1.51), activated partial thromboplastin time was 33s (26s;52s) and platelet count was 88.000/µL (31.000;273.000/µL). Ascites was present in 76% of the cases. Craniocaudal spleen diameter was 17cm (10cm;25cm). Indication for TSPVA was assisted transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement in 16 cases and revision in two cases, portal vein stent placement in five cases and variceal embolization in three cases. TSPVA was successfully established in all interventions; interventional success rate was 85% (22/26). The splenic access time was 33min (10min;133min) and the total procedure time was 208min (110min;429min). Splenic access was performed with a subcostal route in 11 interventions and with an intercostal route in 15 interventions. Final sheath size was 4-F in 17 cases, 5-F in three cases, 6-F in five cases, 7-F in two cases and 8-F in one case. A median of two gelfoam cubes was used for GFTP. TSPVA- and GFTP-related complications occurred in 4 of 26 interventions (15%) with a subcapsular hematoma of the spleen in two patients (CIRSE grade 1), access-related infection in one patient (CIRSE grade 3) and both in one patient (CIRSE grade 3). In detail, one access-related complication occurred in a patient with subcostal TSPVA (CIRSE grade 1 complication) and the other three complications occurred in patients with intercostal TSPVA (one CIRSE grade 1 complication and two CIRSE grade 3 complication) (p = 0.614). No patient required interventional or surgical treatment due to puncture tract bleeding.

Conclusion: Gelfoam-based plugging of the puncture tract was feasible and safe for transsplenic access in adult patients undergoing percutaneous portal vein interventions. The lack of major bleeding complications and complete absorption of the gelatine sponge make it a safe alternative to transjugular and transhepatic access and re-interventions via the splenic route.

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
CVIR Endovascular
CVIR Endovascular Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
×
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