Endovascular Management of Post-Irradiated Carotid Blowout Syndrome

To retrospectively evaluate the clinical and technical factors related to the outcomes of endovascular management in patients with head-and-neck cancers associated with post-irradiated carotid blowout syndrome (PCBS). Between 2000 and 2013, 96 patients with PCBS underwent endovascular management. Th...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2015-10, Vol.10 (10), p.e0139821-e0139821
Hauptverfasser: Chang, Feng-Chi, Luo, Chao-Bao, Lirng, Jiing-Feng, Lin, Chung-Jung, Lee, Han-Jui, Wu, Chih-Chun, Hung, Sheng-Che, Guo, Wan-Yuo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To retrospectively evaluate the clinical and technical factors related to the outcomes of endovascular management in patients with head-and-neck cancers associated with post-irradiated carotid blowout syndrome (PCBS). Between 2000 and 2013, 96 patients with PCBS underwent endovascular management. The 40 patients with the pathological lesions located in the external carotid artery were classified as group 1 and were treated with embolization. The other 56 patients with the pathological lesions located in the trunk of the carotid artery were divided into 2 groups as follows: group 2A comprised the 38 patients treated with embolization, and group 2B comprised the 18 patients treated with stent-graft placement. Fisher's exact test was used to examine endovascular methods, clinical severities, and postprocedural clinical diseases as predictors of outcomes. Technical success and immediate hemostasis were achieved in all patients. The results according to endovascular methods (group 1 vs 2A vs 2B) were as follows: technical complication (1/40[2.5%] vs 9/38[23.7%] vs 9/18[50.0%], P = 0.0001); rebleeding (14/40[35.0%] vs 5/38[13.2%] vs 7/18[38.9%]), P = 0.0435). The results according to clinical severity (acute vs ongoing PCBS) were as follows: technical complication (15/47[31.9%] vs 4/49[8.2%], P = 0.0035); rebleeding (18/47[38.3%] vs 8/49[16.3%], P = 0.0155). The results according to post-procedural clinical disease (regressive vs progressive change) were as follows: alive (14/21[66.7%] vs 8/75[10.7%], P
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139821