These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of outcomes with coils versus vascular plug embolization of the internal iliac artery for endovascular aortoiliac aneurysm repair.
    Author: Ryer EJ, Garvin RP, Webb TP, Franklin DP, Elmore JR.
    Journal: J Vasc Surg; 2012 Nov; 56(5):1239-45. PubMed ID: 22727840.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of coil embolization (COIL) to Amplatzer vascular plug embolization (PLUG) to achieve internal iliac artery (IIA) occlusion prior to endovascular aortiliac aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Data from consecutive patients who underwent IIA embolization prior to EVAR over a 6-year period (2004-2010) were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, treatment modalities, and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: From January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2010, a total of 53 patients underwent percutaneous embolization of 57 IIAs prior to EVAR. Twenty-nine IIAs underwent COIL and 28 IIAs underwent PLUG embolization. Patient demographics and risk factors were similar between the two groups. Patients underwent repair for aneurysmal dilation of the infrarenal aorta in conjunction with the common or internal iliac arteries (n = 35, 62%) or isolated iliac artery aneurysms (n = 19, 38%). A significantly greater number of embolization devices were used in the COIL group (5.8 ± 3.8 vs 1.1 ± 0.4; P < .0001). Patients undergoing PLUG embolization demonstrated significantly shorter procedure times (118.4 ± 64.7 minutes vs 72.6 ± 22.4 minutes; P = .008) and fluoroscopy times (32.6 ± 14.6 vs 14.4 ± 8.6 minutes; P = .002). However, radiation dose between the groups did not differ (COIL: 470,192.7 ± 190,606.6 vs PLUG: 300,972.2 ± 191,815.7 mGycm(2); P = .10). Overall periprocedural morbidity did not differ between the groups (COIL: 11% vs PLUG: 6%; P = 1.0), and there were no perioperative mortalities or severe complications. Nontarget embolization occurred in two COIL and no PLUG cases (COIL: 6.9% vs PLUG: 0%; P = .49). Patient-reported buttock claudication at 1 month was 17.2% for COIL and 39.3% for PLUG patients (P = .08). At last follow-up, persistent buttock claudication was reported in 13.8% of COIL and in 14.3% of PLUG embolizations (P = 1.0). There was no significant difference in charges for the embolization material, operating room, or overall hospital charges (COIL: 44,720 ± 19,153 vs 37,367 ± 10,915; P = .22). Lastly, zero endoleaks in the COIL group and three in the PLUG group (P = .40) were detected on the most recent follow-up computed tomography imaging. No endoleak was related to the site of IIA embolization. CONCLUSIONS: COIL and PLUG embolization both provide effective IIA embolization with low complication rates when used for EVAR. Buttock claudication did occur in approximately one-third of patients but resolved in half of those affected. PLUG embolization took significantly less time to perform and required decreased fluoroscopy times. Based on outcomes and cost-analysis, COIL and PLUG embolization are equivalent methods to achieve IIA occlusion during EVAR.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]