颈动脉-颈静脉瘘的血管内治疗和药物治疗策略:安全性和有效性分析。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Interventional Neuroradiology Pub Date : 2024-06-17 DOI:10.1177/15910199241261761
Justin E Vranic, Robert W Regenhardt, Amine Awad, Omer Doron, James Rabinov
{"title":"颈动脉-颈静脉瘘的血管内治疗和药物治疗策略:安全性和有效性分析。","authors":"Justin E Vranic, Robert W Regenhardt, Amine Awad, Omer Doron, James Rabinov","doi":"10.1177/15910199241261761","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Carotid-cavernous fistulas (CCFs) are complex arteriovenous shunting lesions of the cavernous sinus with diverse clinical presentations. This study aimed to analyze clinical outcomes and differentiate patients treated with conservative observation versus those needing endovascular intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of 84 patients with angiographically confirmed CCF was conducted from 2000 to 2022. Endovascular treatment decisions were made at the discretion of neurointerventionalists. Clinical and angiographic data were collected, including Barrow CCF classification and treatment outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients managed conservatively (<i>n</i> = 17) had longer symptom duration (165 vs 42 days) and more indirect CCF (100% vs 68%) compared to those treated with endovascular embolization (<i>n</i> = 67). High-risk clinical symptoms, including proptosis, diplopia, decreased visual acuity, and chemosis, were more common in the embolization group. Cortical venous reflux and ophthalmic venous reflux were more prevalent in the embolization group (39% and 91%, respectively). Overall, 31% of embolized CCFs required retreatment, mainly Barrow type D lesions (65%). Transvenous coil embolization was the primary technique used (78%), followed by feeder artery embolization (16%), and internal carotid artery flow diversion (8%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In selected CCF patients without high-risk symptoms or angiographic features, conservative observation is a safe and effective alternative to endovascular embolization. High-risk symptoms and angiographic features favor endovascular intervention. Complications were rare, and most were transient, emphasizing the safety of endovascular management. Longitudinal angiographic and ophthalmologic surveillance is essential for monitoring fistula persistence or recurrence.</p>","PeriodicalId":49174,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":"15910199241261761"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571441/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endovascular and medical management strategies for carotid-cavernous fistulas: A safety and efficacy analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Justin E Vranic, Robert W Regenhardt, Amine Awad, Omer Doron, James Rabinov\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15910199241261761\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Carotid-cavernous fistulas (CCFs) are complex arteriovenous shunting lesions of the cavernous sinus with diverse clinical presentations. This study aimed to analyze clinical outcomes and differentiate patients treated with conservative observation versus those needing endovascular intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of 84 patients with angiographically confirmed CCF was conducted from 2000 to 2022. Endovascular treatment decisions were made at the discretion of neurointerventionalists. Clinical and angiographic data were collected, including Barrow CCF classification and treatment outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients managed conservatively (<i>n</i> = 17) had longer symptom duration (165 vs 42 days) and more indirect CCF (100% vs 68%) compared to those treated with endovascular embolization (<i>n</i> = 67). High-risk clinical symptoms, including proptosis, diplopia, decreased visual acuity, and chemosis, were more common in the embolization group. Cortical venous reflux and ophthalmic venous reflux were more prevalent in the embolization group (39% and 91%, respectively). Overall, 31% of embolized CCFs required retreatment, mainly Barrow type D lesions (65%). Transvenous coil embolization was the primary technique used (78%), followed by feeder artery embolization (16%), and internal carotid artery flow diversion (8%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In selected CCF patients without high-risk symptoms or angiographic features, conservative observation is a safe and effective alternative to endovascular embolization. High-risk symptoms and angiographic features favor endovascular intervention. Complications were rare, and most were transient, emphasizing the safety of endovascular management. Longitudinal angiographic and ophthalmologic surveillance is essential for monitoring fistula persistence or recurrence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interventional Neuroradiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"15910199241261761\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571441/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interventional Neuroradiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15910199241261761\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15910199241261761","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:颈动脉海绵窦瘘(CCF)是海绵窦复杂的动静脉分流病变,临床表现多种多样。本研究旨在分析临床结果,并区分保守观察治疗与需要血管内介入治疗的患者:方法:该研究对 2000 年至 2022 年间 84 例经血管造影证实的 CCF 患者进行了回顾性分析。血管内治疗决定由神经介入专家酌情做出。收集了临床和血管造影数据,包括巴罗CCF分类和治疗结果:与接受血管内栓塞治疗的患者(67 人)相比,保守治疗的患者(17 人)症状持续时间更长(165 天 vs 42 天),间接 CCF 更多(100% vs 68%)。栓塞组的高危临床症状更常见,包括突眼、复视、视力下降和化脓。栓塞组皮质静脉回流和眼静脉回流的发生率更高(分别为 39% 和 91%)。总体而言,31%的栓塞CCF需要再治疗,主要是巴罗D型病变(65%)。经静脉线圈栓塞是主要的栓塞技术(78%),其次是馈动脉栓塞(16%)和颈内动脉血流改道(8%):结论:对于选定的无高风险症状或血管造影特征的CCF患者,保守观察是血管内栓塞的一种安全有效的替代方法。高危症状和血管造影特征有利于血管内介入治疗。并发症非常罕见,而且大多数是一过性的,这强调了血管内治疗的安全性。纵向血管造影和眼科监测对于监测瘘管的持续或复发至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Endovascular and medical management strategies for carotid-cavernous fistulas: A safety and efficacy analysis.

Background: Carotid-cavernous fistulas (CCFs) are complex arteriovenous shunting lesions of the cavernous sinus with diverse clinical presentations. This study aimed to analyze clinical outcomes and differentiate patients treated with conservative observation versus those needing endovascular intervention.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of 84 patients with angiographically confirmed CCF was conducted from 2000 to 2022. Endovascular treatment decisions were made at the discretion of neurointerventionalists. Clinical and angiographic data were collected, including Barrow CCF classification and treatment outcomes.

Results: Patients managed conservatively (n = 17) had longer symptom duration (165 vs 42 days) and more indirect CCF (100% vs 68%) compared to those treated with endovascular embolization (n = 67). High-risk clinical symptoms, including proptosis, diplopia, decreased visual acuity, and chemosis, were more common in the embolization group. Cortical venous reflux and ophthalmic venous reflux were more prevalent in the embolization group (39% and 91%, respectively). Overall, 31% of embolized CCFs required retreatment, mainly Barrow type D lesions (65%). Transvenous coil embolization was the primary technique used (78%), followed by feeder artery embolization (16%), and internal carotid artery flow diversion (8%).

Conclusion: In selected CCF patients without high-risk symptoms or angiographic features, conservative observation is a safe and effective alternative to endovascular embolization. High-risk symptoms and angiographic features favor endovascular intervention. Complications were rare, and most were transient, emphasizing the safety of endovascular management. Longitudinal angiographic and ophthalmologic surveillance is essential for monitoring fistula persistence or recurrence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Interventional Neuroradiology
Interventional Neuroradiology CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
11.80%
发文量
192
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Interventional Neuroradiology (INR) is a peer-reviewed clinical practice journal documenting the current state of interventional neuroradiology worldwide. INR publishes original clinical observations, descriptions of new techniques or procedures, case reports, and articles on the ethical and social aspects of related health care. Original research published in INR is related to the practice of interventional neuroradiology...
期刊最新文献
Circulating miRNA profiles as predictive biomarkers for aneurysm healing following endovascular treatment: a prospective study. "Chopperlysis": The effect of helicopter transport on reperfusion and outcomes in large vessel occlusion strokes. DWI lesions after intracranial aneurysm treatment with contour or WEB-does the device matter? Analysis of selective neurocritical care admission costs following elective endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Recognition of dural to pial supply in high-grade dural arteriovenous fistula: A technical note.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1