Journal of cerebrovascular and endovascular neurosurgery · 2019
Advantages and disadvantages of the ENVOY 6F distal access guiding catheter in endovascular coiling for anterior circulation aneurysms.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Baek Jin Wook, Jin Sung-Chul, Kim Sung-Tae, Heo Young Jin, Han Ji Yeon, Seo Jung Hwa, Paeng Sung Hwa, Kim Jung Soo, Jeong Hae Woong, Jeong Young-Gyun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Selecting an appropriate guiding catheter to provide both sufficient supportability for working devices and sufficient distal navigability is essential for ensuring the success of a procedure. This study aimed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of using the ENVOY 6F distal access (DA) guiding catheter in coil embolization of anterior circulation cerebral aneurysms.
METHODS: We included 98 patients (72 [73.5%] women, median age: 63 [range: 25-84] years) who underwent endovascular coiling with the ENVOY 6F DA guiding catheter from May to November 2016. We analyzed data on patient demographics and the number of co-axial techniques to position the guiding catheter, initial and final location of the catheter, and complications related to the catheter.
RESULTS: The co-axial technique was used to position the ENVOY 6F DA guiding catheter in the internal carotid artery (ICA) in 20 cases (20.41%). The initial position of the ENVOY 6F DA guiding catheter involved the cervical ICA (79.6%), horizontal petrous ICA (17.3%), and vertical petrous ICA (3.1%). Final control angiograms after endovascular coiling showed proximal change in the final, compared to the initial, position of the ENVOY 6F DA guiding catheter in 25 cases (25.51%). Procedure-related complications were observed in nine patients (9.18%), involving vasospasm in all cases; however, there was no symptomatic case.
CONCLUSION: The ENVOY 6F DA guiding catheter had relatively sufficient distal navigability without symptomatic procedural complications. However, the change in the catheter position after endovascular coiling denoted insufficient supportability.
METHODS: We included 98 patients (72 [73.5%] women, median age: 63 [range: 25-84] years) who underwent endovascular coiling with the ENVOY 6F DA guiding catheter from May to November 2016. We analyzed data on patient demographics and the number of co-axial techniques to position the guiding catheter, initial and final location of the catheter, and complications related to the catheter.
RESULTS: The co-axial technique was used to position the ENVOY 6F DA guiding catheter in the internal carotid artery (ICA) in 20 cases (20.41%). The initial position of the ENVOY 6F DA guiding catheter involved the cervical ICA (79.6%), horizontal petrous ICA (17.3%), and vertical petrous ICA (3.1%). Final control angiograms after endovascular coiling showed proximal change in the final, compared to the initial, position of the ENVOY 6F DA guiding catheter in 25 cases (25.51%). Procedure-related complications were observed in nine patients (9.18%), involving vasospasm in all cases; however, there was no symptomatic case.
CONCLUSION: The ENVOY 6F DA guiding catheter had relatively sufficient distal navigability without symptomatic procedural complications. However, the change in the catheter position after endovascular coiling denoted insufficient supportability.