Bronchial Artery Embolization in Pediatric Pulmonary Hemorrhage: A Single-Center Experience

PurposeTo explore the safety and effectiveness of bronchial artery (BA) embolization (BAE) in children with pulmonary hemorrhage.Materials and MethodsBetween February 2016 and February 2019, 41 patients (median age, 4 y; interquartile range, 2.3-8 y; median weight, 17.6 kg; interquartile range, 12.3–23.6 kg) underwent BAE. The indication of BAE included massive hemoptysis in 10 patients (24.4%), recurrent hemoptysis in 18 patients (43.9%), and refractory anemia in 13 patients (31.7%). The main etiology of pulmonary hemorrhage included pulmonary hemosiderosis (58.5%), congenital heart disease (17.1%), and infection (14.6%). A retrospective review was conducted of clinical outcomes of BAE.ResultsThere were 44 embolization sessions, with a total of 137 embolized vessels. Pulmonary hemorrhage was caused by BAs in 30 cases, nonbronchial systemic arteries plus BAs in 10, and nonbronchial systemic arteries in 1. Embolic particles were used in 30 cases (24 polyvinyl alcohol [PVA] and 6 microsphere), coils in 9 cases, and particles plus coils in 5 cases (4 PVA and 1 microsphere). Technical success (ability to embolize abnormal vessel) was achieved in 97.6% of patients (40 of 41), and clinical success (complete or partial resolution of hemoptysis within 30 days of embolization) was achieved in 90.2% (37 of 41). There was 1 procedure-related complication (2.4%) of cerebral infarction and 1 death from multiple-organ dysfunction (2.4%). Bleeding-free survival rates at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months were 92.5%, 83.9%, 83.9%, and 70.8%, respectively.ConclusionsBAE is a safe and effective procedure in children with pulmonary hemorrhage.     

TACE 术前天冬氨酸氨基转移酶与淋巴细胞比值对原发性肝癌并门脉癌栓患者预后预测的价值

目的 探讨肝动脉化疗栓塞（transcatheter arterial chemoembolization，TACE）术前天冬氨酸氨基转移酶与淋巴细胞比值（aspartate aminotransferase to lymphocyte ratio index，ALRI）在原发性肝癌并门脉癌栓（primary liver cancer-portal vein tumor thrombosis，PLC-PVTT）患者预后预测中的价值。方法 选取2013年11月21日至2018年8月22日于广西医科大学附属肿瘤医院接受TACE治疗的175例PLC-PVTT患者为研究对象。采用时间依赖性ROC曲线确定ALRI的最佳临界值。采用Cox 回归模型分析总生存期（overall survival，OS）的独立预测因素，Kaplan-Meier法计算生存率。结果 ROC曲线显示，ALRI的最佳临界值为49.37，对应曲线下面积为0.71。Kaplan-Meier分析显示，ALRI>49.37的患者OS较ALRI≤49.37的患者短（P=0.003）。Cox 回归分析结果显示，ALRI>49.37、行1次以上TACE治疗、Child-Pugh分级B级、凝血酶原时间≥13 s是患者TACE术后OS的独立危险因素（均P＜0.05）。结论 TACE术前ALRI>49.37是PLC-PVTT患者OS的独立危险因素。     

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

PurposeTo 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 methodsRadiopaque 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.ResultsTotal volumes of radio-opaque microspheres injected were similar for RCM (11.5 ± 3.6 [SD] mL; range: 6–17 mL) and SEHM (10.6 ± 5.2 [SD] mL; range: 4–19 mL) (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).ConclusionIn 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.