Non-target lung embolization during portal vein embolization due to an unrecognized portosystemic venous fistula: A case report

BACKGROUND

Portal vein embolization (PVE) is an effective and relatively safe procedure performed prior to major hepatic resection to enhance future liver remnant. Non-target embolization during PVE is rare, and if it occurs, it usually affects the future liver remnant. Intrahepatic portosystemic venous fistulas are extremely rare in non-cirrhotic livers. We report a case of non-targeted lung embolization during PVE due to an unrecognized intrahepatic portosystemic fistula.

CASE SUMMARY

A 60-year-old male presented with metastatic colon cancer of the liver. The patient underwent preoperative right PVE. During the embolization procedure, a small amount of glue and lipiodol emulsion was embolized to the heart and lungs through an unrecognized intrahepatic portosystemic fistula. The patient remained clinically stable and underwent the planned hepatic resection after 4 wk, with an uneventful postoperative course.

CONCLUSION

Conventional portograms and careful evaluation prior to PVE are advisable to avoid such complications.

Prostatic artery embolization using reflux-control microcatheter: prospective experience addressing feasibility

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE) using a reflux control microcatheter.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective, single-center investigation that included 10 patients undergoing PAE for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) attributed to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). Baseline, 3-month, and 12-month efficacy endpoints were obtained for all patients and included prostate-specific antigen (PSA), uroflowmetry, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and clinical assessment using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire and the IPSS-Quality of life (QoL) item. Complications were assessed using the Cirse classification system.

RESULTS

Ten patients entered statistical analysis and presented with significant LUTS improvement 12 months after PAE, as follows: mean IPSS reduction of 86.6% (2.8 vs. 20.7, - 17.9, P < 0.001), mean QoL reduction of 79.4% (1.1 vs. 5.4, - 4.3, P < 0.001), mean prostatic volume reduction of 38.4% (69.3 cm³ vs. 112.5 cm³, - 43.2 cm³, P < 0.001), mean peak urinary flow (Qmax) increase of 199.4% (19.9 mL/s vs. 6.6 mL/s, + 13.3 mL/s, P = 0.006) and mean PSA reduction of 50.1% (3.0 ng/mL vs. 6.1 ng/mL, - 3.0 ng/mL, P < 0.001). One patient (10%) needed transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) after PAE due to a ball-valve effect. One microcatheter (10%) needed to be replaced during PAE due to occlusion. Non-target embolization was not observed in the cohort.

CONCLUSION

This initial experience suggests that PAE using a reflux control microcatheter is effective and safe for the treatment of LUTS attributed to BPH.

Reduced nontarget embolization and increased targeted delivery with a reflux-control microcatheter in a swine model

PURPOSE

To evaluate the potential differences in non-target embolization and vessel microsphere filling of a reflux-control microcatheter (RCM) compared to a standard end-hole microcatheter (SEHM) in a swine model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Radiopaque microspheres were injected with both RCM and SEHM (2.4-Fr and 2.7-Fr) in the kidneys of a preclinical swine model. Transarterial renal embolization procedures with RCM or SEHM were performed in both kidneys of 14 pigs. Renal arteries were selectively embolized with an automated injection protocol of radio-opaque microspheres. Ex-vivo X-ray microtomography images of the kidneys were utilized to evaluate the embolization by quantification of the deposition of injected microspheres in the target vs. the non-target area of injection. X-ray microtomography images were blindly analyzed by five interventional radiologists. The degree of vessel filling and the non-target embolization were quantified using a scale from 1 to 5 for each parameter. An analysis of variance was used to compare the paired scores.

RESULTS

Total volumes of radio-opaque microspheres injected were similar for RCM (11.5±3.6 [SD] mL; range: 6-17mL) and SEHM (10.6±5.2 [SD] mL; range: 4-19mL) (P=0.38). The voxels enhanced ratio in the target (T) vs. non-target (NT) areas was greater with RCM (T=98.3% vs. NT=1.7%) than with SEHM (T=89% vs. NT=11%) but the difference was not significant (P=0.30). The total score blindly given by the five interventional radiologists was significantly different between RCM (12.3±2.1 [SD]; range: 6-15) and the standard catheter (11.3±2.5 [SD]; range: 4-15) (P=0.0073), with a significant decrease of non-target embolization for RCM (3.8±1.3 [SD]; range: 3.5-4.2) compared to SEHM (3.2±1.5 [SD]; range: 2.9-3.5) (P=0.014).

CONCLUSION

In an animal model, RCM microcatheters reduce the risk of non-target embolization from 11% to 1.7%, increasing the delivery of microspheres of 98% to the target vessels, compared to SEHM microcatheters.