Marra Paolo, Carbone Francesco Saverio, Augello Luigi, Dulcetta Ludovico, Muglia Riccardo, Bonaffini Pietro Andrea, Della Corte Angelo, Steidler Stephanie, Gusmini Simone, Guazzarotti Giorgia, Palumbo Diego, Venturini Massimo, De Cobelli Francesco, Sironi Sandro
Department of Radiology, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Piazza Oms 1, 24127, Bergamo, Italy.
School of Medicine, University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza dell'Ateneo Nuovo, 1, Milan, Italy.
CVIR Endovasc. 2022 Sep 5;5(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s42155-022-00321-2.
Embolisation of the parenchymal tract is a key step after any other transhepatic or transplenic percutaneous portal vein catheterization since eventual venous bleeding is difficult to control and may require surgical management. Different techniques have been proposed to perform tract embolisation. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of different techniques of haemostasis of the parenchymal tract.
All the interventional procedures with percutaneous transhepatic or transplenic access to the portal vein (excluding ipsilateral portal vein embolisation) from January 2010 to July 2020, in two tertiary hospitals, were retrospectively analyzed. The following data were evaluated: access site, the technique of embolisation, technical success in terms of immediate thrombosis of the tract, safety and clinical efficacy in terms of the absence of hemorrhagic and thrombotic complications.
One-hundred-sixty-one patients underwent 220 percutaneous transhepatic or transplenic portal vein catheterization procedures. The main indications were pancreatic islet transplantation, portal anastomotic stenosis after liver transplantation, and portal vein thrombosis recanalization. As embolic materials gelfoam was used in 105 cases, metallic micro-coils in 54 cases, and cyanoacrylic glue in 44 cases; in 17 cases the parenchymal tract was not embolized. Technical success was 98% without significant difference among groups (p-value = 0.22). Eighteen post-procedural abdominal bleedings occurred, all grade 3 and were managed conservatively; difference among groups was not significant (p-value = 0.25). We detected 12 intrahepatic portal branch thromboses not related to the embolisation technique; only one case of non-target embolisation was documented after liver tract embolisation with glue, without clinical consequences.
Embolisation of the parenchymal tract after percutaneous portal vein catheterization is technically safe and effective. No significant differences were found between coils, glue, and gelfoam in effectiveness and complications rate.
Level 3, Cohort study.
在任何经肝或经脾的经皮门静脉置管术后,实质通道的栓塞是关键步骤,因为最终的静脉出血难以控制,可能需要手术处理。已提出不同技术来进行通道栓塞。本研究的目的是比较不同实质通道止血技术的安全性和有效性。
回顾性分析2010年1月至2020年7月在两家三级医院进行的所有经皮经肝或经脾进入门静脉的介入操作(不包括同侧门静脉栓塞)。评估以下数据:入路部位、栓塞技术、通道即时血栓形成方面的技术成功率、无出血和血栓形成并发症方面的安全性和临床疗效。
161例患者接受了220次经皮经肝或经脾门静脉置管操作。主要适应证为胰岛移植、肝移植后门静脉吻合口狭窄和门静脉血栓再通。作为栓塞材料,105例使用了明胶海绵,54例使用了金属微线圈,44例使用了氰基丙烯酸酯胶;17例未栓塞实质通道。技术成功率为98%,组间无显著差异(p值=0.22)。术后发生18例腹部出血,均为3级,经保守治疗;组间差异不显著(p值=0.25)。我们检测到12例与栓塞技术无关的肝内门静脉分支血栓形成;仅1例在使用胶水进行肝通道栓塞后记录到非靶栓塞,无临床后果。
经皮门静脉置管术后实质通道的栓塞在技术上是安全有效的。线圈、胶水和明胶海绵在有效性和并发症发生率方面未发现显著差异。
3级,队列研究。