Jindal Gaurav, Giacon Luciano, Iyoha Moronke, Miller Timothy, Aldrich Francois, Simard Marc, Shivashankar Ravishankar, Gandhi Dheeraj
1 Division of Interventional Neuroradiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, USA.
2 Department of Neurosurgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, USA.
Interv Neuroradiol. 2017 Oct;23(5):551-555. doi: 10.1177/1591019917717575. Epub 2017 Jul 4.
Purpose Advancements in catheter technology have allowed for greater flexibility and trackability. We report 265 consecutive, single-center neurointerventional cases using the Navien guide catheter. Materials and methods Retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive intracranial endovascular procedures utilizing the Navien catheter. Data collected included procedure type, catheters, guide catheter position, cervical access artery tortuosity grade and complications. Results The 5 French catheter was used in 130 cases. The 6 French catheter was used in 135 cases. Access was via the internal carotid artery in 204, external carotid artery in 10, and vertebral artery in 51 cases. Catheter tip position was in the petrous segment of the internal carotid artery in 36.6% (97/265), distal cervical internal carotid artery in 13.9% (37/265), cavernous internal carotid artery in 10.2% (27/265), proximal or mid cervical internal carotid artery in 5.6% (15/265), supraclinoid internal carotid artery in 0.8% (2/265), and intradural vertebral artery in 0.8% (2/265) of cases. Catheter position was not determined in 18.9% (50/265) of cases. Proximal vessel tortuosity (grade B or C) was present in 98 cases (37%), and the catheter was tracked distal to the tortuosity in 93% (91/98) of these cases. The overall success rate without catheter complication was 97% (258/265). The Navien was replaced by another catheter in 1.9% (5/265) of cases. There was one cervical artery dissection (0.4%) and one severe vasospasm (0.4%) necessitating Navien removal. Conclusions The Navien guide catheter provided distal access support for neuroendovascular interventions in nearly all cases, including cases with proximal artery tortuosity, with a low rate of catheter-related complications.
目的 导管技术的进步使得导管具有更大的灵活性和可追踪性。我们报告了连续265例使用Navien引导导管的单中心神经介入病例。材料与方法 对使用Navien导管的连续颅内血管内手术进行回顾性分析。收集的数据包括手术类型、导管、引导导管位置、颈部入路动脉迂曲程度和并发症。结果 130例使用5F导管,135例使用6F导管。204例经颈内动脉入路,10例经颈外动脉入路,51例经椎动脉入路。导管尖端位置位于颈内动脉岩段的占36.6%(97/265),颈内动脉远端颈部段的占13.9%(37/265),海绵窦段颈内动脉的占10.2%(27/265),颈内动脉近端或中段颈部段的占5.6%(15/265),颈内动脉床突上段的占0.8%(2/265),硬脊膜内椎动脉的占0.8%(2/265)。18.9%(50/265)的病例未确定导管位置。98例(37%)存在近端血管迂曲(B级或C级),其中93%(91/98)的病例导管追踪至迂曲远端。无导管并发症的总体成功率为97%(258/265)。1.9%(5/265)的病例中Navien被另一根导管替代。有1例颈内动脉夹层(0.4%)和1例严重血管痉挛(0.4%)需要移除Navien。结论 Navien引导导管在几乎所有病例中都为神经血管内介入提供了远端入路支持,包括近端动脉迂曲的病例,且导管相关并发症发生率较低。