Publication: Treatment of pulmonary arteriovenous malformations: clinical experience using different embolization strategies
Issued Date
2020-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
1867108X
18671071
18671071
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85077558393
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Japanese Journal of Radiology. (2020)
Suggested Citation
Akira Adachi, Kengo Ohta, Younes Jahangiri, Yusuke Matsui, Masahiro Horikawa, Yindee Geeratikun, Orapin Chansanti, Shinsaku Yata, Shinya Fujii, Jonathan Steinberger, Frederick S. Keller, Khashayar Farsad Treatment of pulmonary arteriovenous malformations: clinical experience using different embolization strategies. Japanese Journal of Radiology. (2020). doi:10.1007/s11604-019-00916-1 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/49667
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Treatment of pulmonary arteriovenous malformations: clinical experience using different embolization strategies
Abstract
© 2020, Japan Radiological Society. Purpose: To evaluate embolization efficacy of pulmonary arteriovenous malformations (PAVM) using Amplatzer vascular plugs (AVP) and coils. Materials and methods: Eighty-eight embolized simple PAVMs in 38 patients were retrospectively analyzed by follow-up CT. Mean age was 50.2 ± 15.6 years and 22 (57.9%) patients were females. Mean follow-up interval was 38.2 ± 28.4 months (median 29.9 months). Embolization devices included AVP I, AVP II, AVP 4, and coils. Technical success was defined as no visualization of an early draining vein at angiography after embolization. Treatment success was defined as complete disappearance or decrease in size of the venous aneurysm ≥ 70% at follow-up CT. Results: Technical success rate was 100% and treatment success rate evaluated by CT for the various embolization strategies was 100% for AVP I (n = 6), 100% for AVP I + coils (n = 5), 83.3% for AVP II (n = 6), 40.0% for AVP II + coils (n = 5), 87.5% for AVP 4 (n = 8), 50.0% for AVP 4 + coils (n = 8), and 78.0% for coils alone (n = 50). No statistically significant difference in embolization efficacy was seen between different devices (P = 0.083). Although not statistically significant, combination use of coils with AVPs demonstrated lower rates of clinical embolization success (P = 0.053). Conclusion: Embolization of PAVMs demonstrated high technical and treatment success rates with available embolic devices. No significant statistical differences were demonstrated between AVPs. However, the need for both coils and AVPs may suggest a more complicated underlying lesion at risk for recurrence.