Cargando…

Delayed Complications Due to Polymer Coating Embolism after Endovascular Treatment

There have recently been reports of patients who developed postprocedural symptoms or alterations due to delayed foreign body embolisms observed in imaging findings. Polymer coating of devices have been described as a possible cause of foreign body embolisms, manifesting in delayed granulomatous res...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kitamura, Takayuki, Oishi, Hidenori, Fujii, Takashi, Teranishi, Kohsuke, Yatomi, Kenji, Yamamoto, Munetaka, Arai, Hajime
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Japan Neurosurgical Society 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6957771/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31938675
http://dx.doi.org/10.2176/nmccrj.cr.2018-0319
_version_ 1783487346742657024
author Kitamura, Takayuki
Oishi, Hidenori
Fujii, Takashi
Teranishi, Kohsuke
Yatomi, Kenji
Yamamoto, Munetaka
Arai, Hajime
author_facet Kitamura, Takayuki
Oishi, Hidenori
Fujii, Takashi
Teranishi, Kohsuke
Yatomi, Kenji
Yamamoto, Munetaka
Arai, Hajime
author_sort Kitamura, Takayuki
collection PubMed
description There have recently been reports of patients who developed postprocedural symptoms or alterations due to delayed foreign body embolisms observed in imaging findings. Polymer coating of devices have been described as a possible cause of foreign body embolisms, manifesting in delayed granulomatous responses and exhibiting characteristic imaging findings. In four of 4,025 patients who underwent coil embolization in our hospital or its affiliated facilities, similar findings were observed. Delayed lesions appeared between 1 month and 1 year after the procedures. There was extensive edema in the perfusion area of the treated vessels. In two cases examined by contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, multiple solid enhancing lesions within vasogenic edema were observed. Biopsy revealed a membranous foreign body in a blood vessel with surrounding foreign body granuloma formation in 1 case. Because these findings are similar to those of cases reported previously, they were considered as a foreign body embolism due to coating separations from the devices. Polymer coating separation occurs most frequently from guidewires. Especially if a metal introducer is used, the risk of separation increases. Surgeons should carefully follow the manufacturers’ instructions when they use these devices and should acknowledge and report any events that may occur. Although these complications are extremely rare, further studies are warranted of similar cases; and we should prepare and share information on these intravascular devices for wide-scale dissemination in the industry.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6957771
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher The Japan Neurosurgical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69577712020-01-14 Delayed Complications Due to Polymer Coating Embolism after Endovascular Treatment Kitamura, Takayuki Oishi, Hidenori Fujii, Takashi Teranishi, Kohsuke Yatomi, Kenji Yamamoto, Munetaka Arai, Hajime NMC Case Rep J Case Report There have recently been reports of patients who developed postprocedural symptoms or alterations due to delayed foreign body embolisms observed in imaging findings. Polymer coating of devices have been described as a possible cause of foreign body embolisms, manifesting in delayed granulomatous responses and exhibiting characteristic imaging findings. In four of 4,025 patients who underwent coil embolization in our hospital or its affiliated facilities, similar findings were observed. Delayed lesions appeared between 1 month and 1 year after the procedures. There was extensive edema in the perfusion area of the treated vessels. In two cases examined by contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, multiple solid enhancing lesions within vasogenic edema were observed. Biopsy revealed a membranous foreign body in a blood vessel with surrounding foreign body granuloma formation in 1 case. Because these findings are similar to those of cases reported previously, they were considered as a foreign body embolism due to coating separations from the devices. Polymer coating separation occurs most frequently from guidewires. Especially if a metal introducer is used, the risk of separation increases. Surgeons should carefully follow the manufacturers’ instructions when they use these devices and should acknowledge and report any events that may occur. Although these complications are extremely rare, further studies are warranted of similar cases; and we should prepare and share information on these intravascular devices for wide-scale dissemination in the industry. The Japan Neurosurgical Society 2019-12-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6957771/ /pubmed/31938675 http://dx.doi.org/10.2176/nmccrj.cr.2018-0319 Text en © 2020 The Japan Neurosurgical Society This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
spellingShingle Case Report
Kitamura, Takayuki
Oishi, Hidenori
Fujii, Takashi
Teranishi, Kohsuke
Yatomi, Kenji
Yamamoto, Munetaka
Arai, Hajime
Delayed Complications Due to Polymer Coating Embolism after Endovascular Treatment
title Delayed Complications Due to Polymer Coating Embolism after Endovascular Treatment
title_full Delayed Complications Due to Polymer Coating Embolism after Endovascular Treatment
title_fullStr Delayed Complications Due to Polymer Coating Embolism after Endovascular Treatment
title_full_unstemmed Delayed Complications Due to Polymer Coating Embolism after Endovascular Treatment
title_short Delayed Complications Due to Polymer Coating Embolism after Endovascular Treatment
title_sort delayed complications due to polymer coating embolism after endovascular treatment
topic Case Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6957771/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31938675
http://dx.doi.org/10.2176/nmccrj.cr.2018-0319
work_keys_str_mv AT kitamuratakayuki delayedcomplicationsduetopolymercoatingembolismafterendovasculartreatment
AT oishihidenori delayedcomplicationsduetopolymercoatingembolismafterendovasculartreatment
AT fujiitakashi delayedcomplicationsduetopolymercoatingembolismafterendovasculartreatment
AT teranishikohsuke delayedcomplicationsduetopolymercoatingembolismafterendovasculartreatment
AT yatomikenji delayedcomplicationsduetopolymercoatingembolismafterendovasculartreatment
AT yamamotomunetaka delayedcomplicationsduetopolymercoatingembolismafterendovasculartreatment
AT araihajime delayedcomplicationsduetopolymercoatingembolismafterendovasculartreatment