Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Superiority of Proximal Embolization of the Gastroduodenal Artery with the Amplatzer Vascular Plug 4 Before Yttrium-90 Radioembolization: A Retrospective Comparison with Coils in 134 Patients

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the effectiveness of proximal embolization of the gastroduodenal artery (GDA) using the Amplatzer Vascular Plug 4 (AVP 4) compared with pushable coils to avoid hepaticoenteric collaterals of the GDA stump, which may serve as pathways for nontarget embolization.

Materials and Methods

One hundred thirty-four patients scheduled for 90-yttrium radioembolization (Y-90 RE) using either plugs (n = 67) or standard coils (n = 67) for GDA occlusion were retrospectively analyzed. Parameters recorded were length of the perfused GDA stump, distance device to the GDA origin, perfused proximal side branches after embolization, and durability of vessel occlusion at Y-90 RE.

Results

Length of the residually perfused GDA stump was 3.89 ± 2.86 mm for the AVP 4, which was significantly shorter compared with 5.78 ± 3.85 mm for coils (p = 0.005). Distance of the plug to the GDA origin was 1.41 ± 2.60 mm, which was also significantly shorter than 4.73 ± 3.44 mm for coils (p < 0.001). This resulted in significantly fewer patients with residually perfused side branches in the AVP 4 group (n = 2; 3.0 %) compared with the coil group (n = 18; 26.9 %; p < 0.001). At Y-90 RE, no GDA reperfusion was found after plug embolization compared with 2 cases after coil embolization (3.0 %; p = 0.156). Only one patient had a radiation-induced duodenal ulcer after coil embolization, whereas no Y-90-related toxicity was identified after plug embolization.

Conclusion

Use of the AVP 4 for embolization of the GDA allowed an optimal proximal and more effective target vessel occlusion compared with coil embolization, which can avoid complications caused by extrahepatic gastrointestinal deposition of Y-90 microspheres by way of residually perfused proximal side branches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nace GW, Steel JL, Amesur N, Zajko A et al (2011) Yttrium-90 radioembolization for colorectal cancer liver metastases: a single institution experience. Int J Surg Oncol 2011:571261

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Memon K, Lewandowski RJ, Mulcahy MF et al (2011) Radioembolization for neuroendocrine liver metastases: safety, imaging, and long-term outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83(3):887–894

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Seidensticker R, Denecke T, Kraus P et al (2012) Matched-pair comparison of radioembolization plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone for chemotherapy refractory liver-dominant colorectal metastases. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 35(5):1066–1073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lambert B, Sturm E, Mertens J et al (2011) Intra-arterial treatment with 90Y microspheres for hepatocellular carcinoma: 4 years experience at the Ghent University Hospital. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38(12):2117–2124

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vyleta M, Coldwell D (2011) Radioembolization in the treatment of neuroendocrine tumor metastases to the liver. Int J Hepatol 2011:785315

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Welsh JS, Kennedy AS, Thomadsen B (2006) Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) for liver metastases secondary to colorectal adenocarcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Physiol 66(2 Suppl):S62–S73

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Murthy R, Nunez R, Szklaruk J et al (2005) Yttrium-90 microsphere therapy for hepatic malignancy: devices, indications, technical considerations, and potential complications. Radiographics 25(Suppl 1):S41–S55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Murthy R, Brown DB, Salem R et al (2007) Gastrointestinal complications associated with hepatic arterial Yttrium-90 microsphere therapy. J Vasc Interv Radiol 18(4):553–561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kennedy A, Nag S, Salem R et al (2007) Recommendations for radioembolization of hepatic malignancies using yttrium-90 microsphere brachytherapy: a consensus panel report from the radioembolization brachytherapy oncology consortium. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68(1):13–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sjoquist KM, Goldstein D, Bester L (2010) A serious complication of selected internal radiation therapy: case report and literature review. Oncologist 15(8):830–835

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Deleporte A, Flamen P, Hendlisz A (2010) State of the art: radiolabeled microspheres treatment for liver malignancies. Expert Opin Pharmacother 11(4):579–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lewandowski RJ, Sato KT, Atassi B et al (2007) Radioembolization with 90Y microspheres: angiographic and technical considerations. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 30(4):571–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Abdelmaksoud MH, Hwang GL, Louie JD et al (2010) Development of new hepaticoenteric collateral pathways after hepatic arterial skeletonization in preparation for yttrium-90 radioembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 21(9):1385–1395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Petroziello MF, McCann JW, Gonsalves CF et al (2011) Side-branch embolization before 90Y radioembolization: rate of recanalization and new collateral development. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197(1):W169–W174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bonvini RF, Rastan A, Sixt S et al (2009) Percutaneous retrieval of intravascular and intracardiac foreign bodies with a dedicated three-dimensional snare: a 3-year single center experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 74(6):939–945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tateishi M, Tomizawa Y (2009) Intravascular foreign bodies: danger of unretrieved fragmented medical devices. J Artif Organs 12(2):80–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sheth R, Someshwar V, Warawdekar G (2007) Percutaneous retrieval of misplaced intravascular foreign objects with the Dormia basket: an effective solution. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 30(1):48–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gabelmann A, Kramer S, Gorich J (2001) Percutaneous retrieval of lost or misplaced intravascular objects. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176(6):1509–1513

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lagana D, Carrafiello G, Mangini M et al (2008) Indications for the use of the Amplatzer vascular plug in interventional radiology. Radiol Med 113(5):707–718

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Meyer C, Probst C, Strunk H et al (2009) Second-generation Amplatzer Vascular Plug (AVP) for the treatment of subsequent subclavian backflow type II endoleak after TEVAR. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 32(6):1264–1267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pech M, Kraetsch A, Wieners G et al (2009) Embolization of the gastroduodenal artery before selective internal radiotherapy: a prospectively randomized trial comparing platinum-fibered microcoils with the Amplatzer Vascular Plug II. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 32(3):455–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pech M, Mohnike K, Wieners G et al (2011) Advantages and disadvantages of the Amplatzer Vascular Plug IV in visceral embolization: report of 50 placements. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 34(5):1069–1073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Libicher M, Reichert V, Schwabe H et al (2011) Occlusion of arteriovenous fistulas of in situ saphenous vein bypass grafts using the Amplatzer Vascular Plug 4: initial experience. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 34(3):502–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ng EH, Comin J, David E, Pugash R et al (2012) Amplatzer Vascular Plug 4 for proximal splenic artery embolization in blunt trauma. J Vasc Interv Radiol 23(7):976–979

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mordasini P, Szucs-Farkas Z, Do DD et al (2010) Use of a latest-generation vascular plug for peripheral vascular embolization with use of a diagnostic catheter: preliminary clinical experience. J Vasc Interv Radiol 21(8):1185–1190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. MacDonald ST, Carminati M, Butera G (2011) Initial experience with the Amplatzer Vascular Plug IV in congenital heart disease: coronary artery fistula and aortopulmonary collateral artery embolization. J Invasive Cardiol 23(3):120–124

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Adelmann R, Windfuhr A, Bennink G et al (2011) Extended applications of the Amplatzer vascular plug IV in infants. Cardiol Young 21(2):178–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dudeck O, Bulla K, Wieners G et al (2011) Embolization of the gastroduodenal artery before selective internal radiotherapy: a prospectively randomized trial comparing standard pushable coils with fibered interlock detachable coils. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 34(1):74–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany

    Karsten Bulla, Sebastian Hubich, Maciej Pech, David Löwenthal, Jens Ricke & Oliver Dudeck

Authors
  1. Karsten Bulla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastian Hubich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maciej Pech
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Löwenthal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jens Ricke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Oliver Dudeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karsten Bulla.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bulla, K., Hubich, S., Pech, M. et al. Superiority of Proximal Embolization of the Gastroduodenal Artery with the Amplatzer Vascular Plug 4 Before Yttrium-90 Radioembolization: A Retrospective Comparison with Coils in 134 Patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 37, 396–404 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-013-0684-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-013-0684-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation