Endovascular foreign body retrieval

ObjectiveThe number of endovascular procedures performed is increasing exponentially as technology improves. A serious complication of endovascular therapy is loss of a foreign body in the vasculature. We reviewed our experience and evaluated the cause, management, and outcomes of intravascular foreign body (IVFB) misplacement.MethodsWe completed a retrospective review of patients who underwent endovascular retrieval of IVFBs between 2005 and 2010. Patients were identified by current procedural terminology code or by our hospital's risk management team. Patients undergoing routine endovascular retrieval of temporary vena cava filters were excluded.ResultsTwenty-seven IVFBs were identified in 26 patients. Twenty patients were asymptomatic (76.9%). Six patients were symptomatic (22.2%) with either pain (n = 4) or abnormal physical findings (n = 2). There were 13 (48.1%) catheter fragments, six (22.2%) guidewires, five (18.5%) inferior vena cava (IVC) filter (embolisms), two (7.4%) stents, and one (3.7%) sheath fragment. There were five (15.6%) embolizations of an IVFB into the right heart, three (9.4%) into a pulmonary artery, eight (25%) into the vena cava, eight (25%) into peripheral veins, five (15.6%) into peripheral arteries, one (3.1%) into a coronary artery, one (3.1%) into a hepatic vein, and one (3.1%) into adjacent soft tissue. The mechanism of endovascular loss was device fracture in 16 (59.3%) cases, loss of control in six cases (22.2%), migration in four (14.8%) cases, and incorrect device deployment in one case (3.7%). The probable cause of foreign body loss was technical error in eight (29.6%) cases. In three cases, IVFB retrieval was not attempted. The misplacement and retrieval were completed during the same procedure in 13 (48%) cases. Twenty-four endovascular retrievals were performed. Fifteen (62.5%) procedures used a snare to remove the IVFB and two (8.2%) used balloon catheters. Three IVFBs could not be removed and two cases were converted to open procedures. Technical success was achieved in 19/24 cases (79.2%). There were no immediate complications related to the retrieval of the IVFB; however, there was a single late complication of pulmonary embolism after failed endovascular retrieval (1/24, 4.2%). Thirty-day survival was 100%.ConclusionsIntravascular foreign bodies are a serious complication of endovascular therapy that can be minimized with proper device selection and deployment. When an intravascular foreign body is identified, endovascular retrieval should be attempted due to its high success rate and minimal morbidity

Erratum to: A novel anatomic severity grading score for acute Type B aortic dissections and correlation to aortic reinterventions after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Abstract Background We introduce a novel preoperative anatomic severity grading system for acute type B aortic dissections and validate the system in a cohort of patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Methods We identified a cohort of patients who received thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute type B aortic dissection from 2008 to 2014. We developed an anatomic severity grading score (ASG) to measure attributes of aortic anatomy that we hypothesized may affect difficulty or durability of repair. Measurements were made using computed tomography angiography images and based on hypothesized severity, giving a potential score range of 0-38. Results We analyzed the computed tomography angiography images on a cohort of 30 patients with acute type B aortic dissection who underwent TEVAR. We created an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) using anatomic severity grading to predict aortic-related reinterventions. The AUROC was 0.72 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.1). Guided by the AUROC, we divided patients into two groups: a low-score group with anatomic severity grading scores <23 (n = 22), and a high-score group with scores ≥23 (n = 8). With this cutoff, anatomic severity grading exhibited 80% sensitivity and 84% specificity in predicting aortic-related reinterventions, with reinterventions in 50% of high-score patients and 4.5% of low-score patients (P = 0.011). The high score group also had significantly greater blood loss (200 vs 100 mL, P = 0.038), fluoroscopy time (36.0 vs 16.6 min; P = 0.022), and a trend for increased procedure time (164 vs 95 min; P = 0.083) than the low-risk group. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the high-score group had a significantly decreased freedom from aortic-related reinterventions than the low-score group (38% vs 100% at 12-month followup; log rank P = 0.001). Conclusions A preoperative anatomic severity grading score for acute type B aortic dissections consists of analysis of the proximal landing zone, curvature and tortuosity of the aorta, dissection anatomy, aortic branch vessel anatomy, and supraceliac aorta anatomy. Anatomic severity grading scores ≥23 are an excellent predictor of aortic-related reinterventions