Embolic Protection in Complex Femoropopliteal Interventions: Safety, Efficacy and Predictors of Filter Macroembolization.

2020 
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a filter embolic protection device (FEPD) in endovascular interventions of the femoropopliteal arteries. METHODS Patients who underwent endovascular interventions of the femoropopliteal arteries between 2008 and 2016 and in whom the SpiderFXTM FEPD was applied were included in this retrospective study. Clinical and angiographic characteristics, filter macroembolization (FME), device-related complications, distal embolization, as well as the early clinical and hemodynamic outcome, were assessed. Potential risk factors for FME were evaluated by multivariate analysis. RESULTS A total of 244 cases were identified (203 patients, claudication 60.4%, critical limb ischaemia 39.6%, mean lesion length 13.2 ± 12.9 cm, complete occlusions in 72.7%). Balloon angioplasty ± stenting (BAP), directional atherectomy ± balloon angioplasty ± stenting (DA) and rotational thrombectomy ± balloon angioplasty ± stenting (RT) were performed in 141, 61 and 42 cases, respectively. FEPD placement and retrieval were successful in all but one case each. Permanent filter-related vessel damage was not observed. The rate of FME was 37.3% (BAP 36.2%, DA 32.8%, RT 47.7%). Risk factors for FME in the BAP- and DA-group were total occlusion, lesion length > 19 cm, visible thrombus and diabetes mellitus. The distal embolization rate despite filter protection was 4.1 % (BAP 4.9%, DA 1.6%, RT 4.8%) and was higher in cases with FME compared with those without FME (8.7% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION The Spider FXTM device is safe and effective in capturing embolic debris during femoropopliteal interventions. A residual risk of peripheral embolization remains. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III, Cohort study.
    • Correction
    • Source
    • Cite
    • Save
    • Machine Reading By IdeaReader
    16
    References
    1
    Citations
    NaN
    KQI
    []