Balloon angioplasty optimization: should we measure balloon volume as well as pressure?

Do Balloon Catheters have a Different Radial Force Along Their Longitudinal Axis?

PURPOSE

This experimental study was designed to compare radial forces between the central portion and both ends of balloon catheters when dilating stenosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three balloon catheters of 6 and 8 mm in diameter and of variable length were tested: Mustang, Conquest, and Genoss PTA. Cylindrical modules to position balloon catheters and install the measuring tip during radial force measurements were made using a 3D printer. The measuring tip created 20% stenosis at the inner lumen. Both ends and center of the balloon catheter were located at the measuring tip. The radial force was measured after inflating the balloon catheter to the rated burst pressure.

RESULTS

For the different diameters and lengths of balloon catheters and cylinder sizes, the median inccenter, the radial rease in radial force at the distal end compared to the center was 16.5% (range: 9.8-35.2%) for Mustang, 12.4% (range: 10.3-25.5%) for Genoss, and 7.4% (range: -0.3-13.1%) for Conquest balloon catheters. Similarly, compared to that at the force at the proximal end was 10.8% greater (range: -2.9-18.3%) for Mustang, 9.9% greater (range: 3.9-22.3%) for Genoss, and 7.3% greater (range: -1.3-12.4%) for Conquest catheters.

CONCLUSION

The radial force is greater at both ends of the balloon than at the central portion, especially at the distal end. Dilation using the distal end of the balloon catheter is a practical method that can be applied in clinical practice without additional devices when encountering resistant stenosis, especially with semi-compliant balloons.

Aortic Dehiscence During Endovascular Sealing for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

PURPOSE

To present a case of aneurysm disruption during endovascular sealing of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

CASE REPORT

A 91-year-old woman presented with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Her aneurysm morphology was unsuitable for standard or fenestrated endovascular repair, whereas open repair was considered to have an increased perioperative risk owing to multiple comorbidities. The Nellix endovascular sealing system was used. The balloon-expandable stent-grafts were deployed, but in the presence of aneurysm rupture, it was decided not to prefill the endobags with saline. The patient developed hypotension during endobag filling, which resolved once target pressure was reached. The procedure was completed uneventfully, and the completion angiogram revealed no endoleak. The time from guidewire insertion to completion angiogram was 24 minutes. Over the following days, she developed a gradual drop in hemoglobin, and computed tomographic angiography revealed an increased retroperitoneal hematoma and pronounced disruption of the calcified rim of the aortic sac compared to the preoperative imaging. She was managed with supportive treatment, demonstrating remarkable progress. She remains in good health 4 months later.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular sealing can be used in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Intraoperative endobag saline prefill should be avoided to minimize the risk of aortic wall disruption.