Endovascular Removal of Intravascular Foreign Bodies: A Single-Center Experience and Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE

To describe causes, clinical signs, experience and endovascular techniques for extraction of intravenous foreign bodies (IFB) and literature review.

METHODS

This retrospective study was based on data collected from the medical records of 51 consecutive patients (26 women and 25 men) treated from July 2007 to May 2020 at a single quaternary center in Brazil and case series with data, published in the literature since 2000 on IFB removal, of at least 5 patients. The average patient age was 43.54 years (range, 2 months to 84 years). The different retrieval method using the following was used in the procedure: gooseneck snare, guidewire, balloon, and custom snares.

RESULTS

The retrieval process rate was 100%. Thirty-one port-a-caths, 6 guidewires, 4 double lumens, 3 permcaths, 3 Shiley® catheters, 1 intra cath, 2 peripherally inserted central catheters, and one stent were extracted. The locations where the IFBs were most frequently trapped were the right atrium (39.2%), the pulmonary artery (17.64%), the superior vena cava (13.72%), and the right ventricle (16.12%). Single venous access was used in 67.07% of the patients. Femoral access, which was the most commonly used approach, was used in 85.71% of the patients. The loop was used in 64.70% of the patients. A fractured catheter was the main IFB in 60.76% of the cases (31 patients). Only one complication related to the extraction of an IFB was noted in a single patient who suffered from atrial fibrillation (1.96%). The 30 day mortality rate was zero.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous IFB removal should be considered as an alternative for the treatment and retrieval of IFBs because it is a minimally invasive procedure that is relatively simple, safe, and has low complication rates.