Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Endovascular management of intracranial carotid blowout syndrome in patients with head and neck cancer.
Yu, Kai-Wei; Ling, Kan; Wu, Chia-Hung; Lin, Te-Ming; Tai, Wei-An; Yang, Chung-Han; Kang, Yu-Mei; Luo, Chao-Bao; Chang, Feng-Chi.
Afiliação
  • Yu KW; Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Ling K; Department of Radiology, Shuang-Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
  • Wu CH; Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Lin TM; School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Tai WA; Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Yang CH; Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Kang YM; Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Luo CB; Department of Heavy Particles and Radiation Oncology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Chang FC; Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
J Neurointerv Surg ; 2024 Sep 04.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39237154
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Carotid blowout syndrome is a serious complication of head and neck cancer (HNC) that may involve the intracranial or extracranial internal carotid artery (ICA). Although parent artery occlusion (PAO) is the major endovascular treatment for intracranial carotid blowout syndrome (iCBS), the efficacy of using a balloon-expandable coronary stent-graft (BES) remains unclear.

METHODS:

This was a quasi-randomized trial, prospective study that included patients with iCBS treated by BES or PAO between 2018 and 2024. Patients were allocated to either group based on the last digit of their chart number; even numbers went to the BES group and odd numbers to the PAO group. The inclusion criteria of iCBS included the pathological process of CBS involving petrous and/or cavernous ICA detected by both imaging and clinical features. The primary outcome was defined as rebleeding events after intervention. The secondary outcome was defined as neurological complication after intervention.

RESULTS:

Fifty-nine patients with 61 iCBS lesions were enrolled. Thirty-three iCBS lesions were treated with BES and 28 underwent PAO. The results for the BES group versus the PAO group, respectively, were rebleeding events, 5/33 (15.1%) vs 5/28 (17.8%) (p=0.78); neurological complication, 5/33 (15.1%) vs 5/28 (17.8%) (p=0.78); median hemostatic time (months), 10.0 vs 11.5 (p=0.22); and median survival time (months), 10.0 vs 11.5 (p=0.39).

CONCLUSIONS:

No significant difference in rebleeding risk or neurological complication was observed between the BES and PAO groups. Our study confirmed the safety and effectiveness of applying BES for iCBS in HNC patients.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Neurointerv Surg Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Taiwan País de publicação: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Neurointerv Surg Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Taiwan País de publicação: Reino Unido