Giurazza F, Ierardi AM, Contegiacomo A, Corvino F, Carrafiello G, Niola R. Embolization with MVP (Micro Vascular Plug
®): experience on 104 patients in emergent and elective scenarios.
CVIR Endovasc 2021;
4:59. [PMID:
34250548 PMCID:
PMC8273051 DOI:
10.1186/s42155-021-00246-2]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2021] [Accepted: 06/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
AIM
To describe a 3 years experience of peripheral arterial embolization with Micro Vascular Plug (MVP) (Medtronic, USA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The following parameters were investigated: type of vascular injury, anticoagulation therapy at time of procedure, anatomical district, caliper of the target artery, course of the landing zone, additional embolics, technical and clinical success, device related clinical complications. Technical success was defined as complete embolization without deployment of additional embolics after MVP release. 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
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. 85 patients were treated in emergent settings while in 19 patients the procedure was scheduled. The overall technical success was 75%. Primary clinical success was 96.1%, secondary clinical success 3% and clinical failure 0.9%. No statistical differences in terms of effectiveness were observed among patients assuming anticoagulation (p-value = 0.6). A straight and longer landing zone were statistically associated with higher technical success compared to curved and shorter ones, (p-values < 0.001 and = 0.048 respectively). MVP-3 and MVP-5 were the most frequently adopted models in this sample, in 29.8% and 49% of the patients respectively. No clinically adverse events directly related to MVP occurred; in 3 cases device migration was registered without clinical complications.
CONCLUSION
MVP is a safe and effective embolic agent. 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.
Collapse