Lee Michael S, Martinsen Brad J, Hollowed John, Heikali Daniel, Mustapha Jihad, Adams George, Mahmud Ehtisham
UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., St. Paul, MN, United States.
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018 Jul;19(5 Pt A):503-505. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2017.10.016. Epub 2017 Oct 27.
Endovascular intervention is an appealing revascularization strategy for iliac artery disease. Atherectomy of the iliac artery is uncommon due to the risk of life-threatening perforation but may be necessary if the iliac lesion is heavily calcified, preventing stent delivery or optimal expansion. We assessed the feasibility and safety of orbital atherectomy for the treatment of iliac artery disease. Demographic data, lesion characteristics, and procedure outcomes for the CONFIRM patients with at least one iliac artery lesion treated with orbital atherectomy (n=62 patients; n=68 lesions) were compared to patients with at least one superficial femoral artery (SFA) lesion treated with orbital atherectomy (n=1570 patients; n=1809 lesions). The procedural complication rate, defined as the composite of flow limiting dissection, perforation, slow flow, vessel closure, spasm, embolism, or thrombosis, was compared in iliac lesions versus SFA lesions. The iliac artery group had more patients with diabetes, shorter lesions, and more severely calcified lesions. The orbital atherectomy run time was significantly shorter in the iliac artery group. Additionally, in the iliac group there was one reported perforation and one reported vessel closure; the rates of slow flow, spasm, embolism, thrombus, and flow limiting dissection were 0%. The overall procedural complication rate was significantly lower in the iliac group (2.9% vs. 11.2%, p=0.03). Orbital atherectomy of the iliac artery is feasible with few reported angiographic complications and compared favorably with the SFA group. Orbital atherectomy may be considered to facilitate the delivery and expansion of a balloon or stent if the iliac artery is calcified.
血管内介入治疗是治疗髂动脉疾病的一种有吸引力的血运重建策略。由于存在危及生命的穿孔风险,髂动脉旋切术并不常见,但如果髂动脉病变严重钙化,妨碍支架输送或无法实现最佳扩张,则可能有必要进行旋切术。我们评估了眼眶旋切术治疗髂动脉疾病的可行性和安全性。将接受眼眶旋切术治疗的至少有一处髂动脉病变的CONFIRM患者(n = 62例患者;n = 68处病变)的人口统计学数据、病变特征和手术结果,与接受眼眶旋切术治疗的至少有一处股浅动脉(SFA)病变的患者(n = 1570例患者;n = 1809处病变)进行比较。比较了髂动脉病变与股浅动脉病变的手术并发症发生率,手术并发症定义为限流性夹层、穿孔、血流缓慢、血管闭塞、痉挛、栓塞或血栓形成的综合情况。髂动脉组糖尿病患者更多,病变较短,钙化更严重。髂动脉组的眼眶旋切术操作时间明显更短。此外,在髂动脉组中,有1例报告的穿孔和1例报告的血管闭塞;血流缓慢、痉挛、栓塞、血栓形成和限流性夹层的发生率为0%。髂动脉组的总体手术并发症发生率显著更低(2.9%对11.2%,p = 0.03)。髂动脉眼眶旋切术是可行的,报告的血管造影并发症很少,与股浅动脉组相比具有优势。如果髂动脉钙化,可考虑采用眼眶旋切术以促进球囊或支架的输送和扩张。