Safety of sheathless vascular access using braided 4 F selective catheters for common body interventions - a retrospective study.

4 F Braided catheter Femoral Sheathless Transarterial Vascular access

Journal

CVIR endovascular
ISSN: 2520-8934
Titre abrégé: CVIR Endovasc
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101738484

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
16 Feb 2023
Historique:
received: 18 12 2022
accepted: 23 01 2023
entrez: 16 2 2023
pubmed: 17 2 2023
medline: 17 2 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Besides other factors, complication rate of transarterial interventions depends on the size of the vascular access. Therefore, the vascular access is mostly chosen as small as possible while still allowing all planned parts of the intervention. This retrospective analysis is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of sheathless arterial interventions for a broad spectrum of interventions in daily practice. All sheathless interventions using a 4 F main catheter between May 2018 and September 2021 were included in the evaluation. Additionally, intervention parameters such as type of catheter, use of microcatheter and required change of main catheters were assessed. Information about the use about sheathless approach and catheters were obtained from the material registration system. All catheters were braided. 503 sheathless interventions with 4 F catheters from the groin were documented. The spectrum comprised bleeding embolization, diagnostic angiographies, arterial DOTA-TATE-therapy, uterine fibroid embolization, transarterial chemotherapy, transarterial radioembolization and others. In 31 cases (6 %) a change of the main catheter was required. In 381 cases (76 %) a microcatheter was utilized. No clinically relevant adverse events were observed (grade 2 or higher [CIRSE AE-classification]). None of the cases later required conversion to a sheath-based intervention. Sheathless interventions with a 4 F braided catheter from the groin are safe and feasible. It allows for a broad spectrum of interventions in daily practice.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Besides other factors, complication rate of transarterial interventions depends on the size of the vascular access. Therefore, the vascular access is mostly chosen as small as possible while still allowing all planned parts of the intervention. This retrospective analysis is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of sheathless arterial interventions for a broad spectrum of interventions in daily practice.
METHODS METHODS
All sheathless interventions using a 4 F main catheter between May 2018 and September 2021 were included in the evaluation. Additionally, intervention parameters such as type of catheter, use of microcatheter and required change of main catheters were assessed. Information about the use about sheathless approach and catheters were obtained from the material registration system. All catheters were braided.
RESULTS RESULTS
503 sheathless interventions with 4 F catheters from the groin were documented. The spectrum comprised bleeding embolization, diagnostic angiographies, arterial DOTA-TATE-therapy, uterine fibroid embolization, transarterial chemotherapy, transarterial radioembolization and others. In 31 cases (6 %) a change of the main catheter was required. In 381 cases (76 %) a microcatheter was utilized. No clinically relevant adverse events were observed (grade 2 or higher [CIRSE AE-classification]). None of the cases later required conversion to a sheath-based intervention.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Sheathless interventions with a 4 F braided catheter from the groin are safe and feasible. It allows for a broad spectrum of interventions in daily practice.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36795179
doi: 10.1186/s42155-023-00350-5
pii: 10.1186/s42155-023-00350-5
pmc: PMC9935754
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

6

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

CVIR Endovasc. 2020 Jun 8;3(1):29
pubmed: 32507937
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2017 Aug;40(8):1141-1146
pubmed: 28584945
CVIR Endovasc. 2018;1(1):15
pubmed: 30652147
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Dec 21;8(14):1854-64
pubmed: 26604063
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008 Apr;1(2):202-9
pubmed: 19463301
JAMA. 2010 Jun 2;303(21):2156-64
pubmed: 20516416
Radiology. 2001 Jan;218(1):183-7
pubmed: 11152799
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990 Jun;15(7):1475-83
pubmed: 2188985
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Jan;5(1):36-43
pubmed: 22230148
Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2012 Nov;46(8):617-23
pubmed: 22968347
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Nov 15;88(6):923-931
pubmed: 27258764
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2017 Jan - Feb;18(1):28-32
pubmed: 27707595

Auteurs

Jonathan Nadjiri (J)

Department of Interventional Radiology, School of medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, DE, Germany. jonathan.nadjiri@tum.de.

Tobias Geith (T)

Department of Interventional Radiology, School of medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, DE, Germany.

Marc Mühlmann (M)

Department of Interventional Radiology, School of medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, DE, Germany.

Tobias Waggershauser (T)

Department of Interventional Radiology, School of medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, DE, Germany.

Philipp M Paprottka (PM)

Department of Interventional Radiology, School of medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, DE, Germany.

Classifications MeSH