Patient reported long-term outcome after endovascular therapy of indirect dural carotid cavernous fistulas.
Adult
Aged
Carotid Arteries
/ surgery
Carotid Artery Diseases
/ surgery
Endovascular Procedures
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Postoperative Complications
/ etiology
Surveys and Questionnaires
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Visual Acuity
Young Adult
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
25
10
2019
accepted:
19
03
2020
entrez:
11
4
2020
pubmed:
11
4
2020
medline:
9
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patient-reported long-term follow-up after endovascular treatment of indirect carotid cavernous fistulas is important, but rarely addressed in literature. We report on this issue with a special focus on the patient's view and its impact on the indication evaluation process. We retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients (n = 33) with a minimum follow-up interval of at least 36 and up to 166 months after endovascular treatment of an indirect carotid cavernous fistula (Barrow B-D) at our institution (treated from 01/2003 to 06/2015). We determined treatment details including primary therapy success and complication rate and quote the patient's subjective perception of the long-term treatment success using a standardized interview form. As a primary result the fistula was completely occluded in 25/33 cases (76%), while a downgrading was achieved in 8/33 (24%) of the cases. Secondary occlusion was observed in three out of eight patients (38%). In the long-term interview (response rate: 91%, median follow-up interval: 114 months) 87% of the patients reported high satisfaction with the long-term therapy result. Endovascular treatment achieved a sustainable relief from all eye-related symptoms in 89% and from pulsatile tinnitus in 57% of the cases. In addition to good results in terms of angiographic and clinical cure, endovascular treatment is also perceived as beneficial by most of the patients. This is another important argument in favor of an endovascular treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32275700
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231261
pii: PONE-D-19-29793
pmc: PMC7147764
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0231261Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors state, that there are no competing interests between their employment in the ‘Radiologie Augsburg-Friedberg ÜBAG’ and this publication. Additionally this does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials”.
Références
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987 Sep;149(3):587-93
pubmed: 3497549
Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh). 1976 Mar;17(2):180-92
pubmed: 1274655
Radiology. 1987 May;163(2):437-42
pubmed: 3562823
Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2018 Spring;58(2):271-294
pubmed: 29517654
Brain. 1973 Sep;96(3):601-12
pubmed: 4743934
Am J Ophthalmol. 2002 Jul;134(1):85-92
pubmed: 12095813
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015 Oct;38(5):1162-70
pubmed: 25737455
Radiology. 1968 Dec;91(6):1147-50
pubmed: 5699615
J Neurosurg. 1995 Nov;83(5):838-42
pubmed: 7472552
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2017 Nov;159(11):2113-2122
pubmed: 28932918
Eur Radiol. 2016 Dec;26(12):4284-4292
pubmed: 27121930
World J Radiol. 2013 Apr 28;5(4):143-55
pubmed: 23671750
Radiology. 1998 May;207(2):423-30
pubmed: 9577491
Surg Neurol. 1976 Aug;6(2):107-10
pubmed: 951645
Clin Neuroradiol. 2018 Mar;28(1):3-16
pubmed: 29149358
Arch Ophthalmol. 1996 Jun;114(6):707-14
pubmed: 8639083
J Neurosurg. 1985 Feb;62(2):248-56
pubmed: 3968564
PLoS One. 2019 Oct 17;14(10):e0223488
pubmed: 31622360
J Neurosurg. 1975 Jan;42(1):76-85
pubmed: 1110393