CCSVI -Hector Ferral - enero2012

Preview:

DESCRIPTION

Abstract del Dr. Hector Ferral acerca del manejo endovascular de la CCSVI en pacientes portadores de Esclerosis Múltiple.El Dr. Ferral se licenció en Medicina en la ciudad de Mexico, Universidad Anahuac (1979-1985)Residencia en Medicina Interna: Instituto nacional de Nutricion 1986-1988Residencia en Radiologia: Instituto nacional de Nutrición: 1988-1991Fellowship en Intervencionismo: Universidad de Minnesota, Minneapolis : 1991-1993Attending, Profesor asociado: Lousiana State University, New Orleans: 1995-2000Attending: Profesor Asociado: University of Texas, San Antonio: 2000-2003Attending: Profesor de Radiologia: Jefe del Servicio de Intervencionismo, Rush University, Chicago: 2004-2011Attending: North Shore University: Evanston, Chicago Dic. 2011 a la fechamás información en www.cdyte.com

Citation preview

Endovascular management of CCSVI: Single Center Experience

Hector Ferral, MD, George Behrens, MD, Yanki Tumer, MD, Tameem Souman, MD

Purpose

• Present our experience in the management of CCSVI in patients with multiple sclerosis

Materials and Methods

• Retrospective review• IRB approval: August 2011

• 95 patients (35 men/60 women) • Mean age : 48 years old (25-66) • 107 procedures: 06/2010 and

09/2011• 85 patients were self-referred• 10 patients were referred by PCP

Materials and Methods

• All patients had a detailed clinic interview before the procedure• All patients had MS by McDonald criteria

• During the interview, a limited US was performed to assess the jugular veins

• Patients scheduled for venogram once risks & potential benefits discussed

Materials and Methods

Materials and Methods

• Diagnostic venogram• Performed under conscious

sedation• Femoral vein approach

• 9 French sheath

• Selective catheterization of jugular veins and azygos vein

Diagnostic Venogram

Straight catheter with sideholes, mid-neck region50% diluted contrast-Power injector 15 cc volume at 5 cc/secHeld inspiration and expiration

Diagnostic Venogram

Materials and Methods

• Intravascular Ultrasound• 8 French Volcano system• Catheter advanced to mid-neck

level• Slow withdrawal looking for

stenotic areas or tight valves• Vein measurements obtained

Left jugular vein IVUS

IVUS, left jugular vein, severe stenosis

Materials and Methods

• Indications for Angioplasty:• Venogram + severe stenosis or severe

reflux• IVUS + for severe stenosis• IVUS showed thick, rigid valve

• Indications for Stent placement:• Stenosis not responsive to angioplasty• Recurrent stenosis after angioplasty• Occlusion after angioplasty

Post-procedure protocol and follow-up

• Anticoagulation protocol after angioplasty• Full anticoagulation for 10 days

• Lovenox 60-80 mg sq BID for 10 days • Dabigatran etexilate (Pradaxa) 150 mg PO BID

• Plavix 75 mg PO per day for 6 weeks• Jugular vein US within 1 week • F-up visits at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months,

9 months and one year after the procedure• MSIS score started June 2011

Results

• Diagnostic venograms in 95 patients • Positive in 90 patients (94.8%) • Negative in 5 (5.2%)

• 193 venous stenoses in 107 procedures• Left jugular vein

(n=76)• Right jugular vein (n=67) • Azygos vein (n=50)

Results

Angioplasty and Stents

• Angioplasty • Successful in 97.4% (188/193) lesions

• Stents• Self-expandable nitinol stents• Placed in 5 cases• Jugular vein occlusions (n=2)• Stenoses non responsive to angioplasty

(n=3)

Angioplasty

Left jugular vein angioplasty

Stent placement

Severe left jugular vein stenosis

Clinical response

• A total of 50 patients (55.5%) reported a positive response with sustained benefit for more than 4 weeks in at least one of their symptoms

• Thirty-five patients (38.8%) reported no improvement at all after the procedure

• Five patients (5.5%) were lost to follow-up

Complications

• 7/90 treated patients (7.7%)• Minor complications: 4/90 (4.4%)

• Puncture site hematoma (n=3) • Extensive bruising (n=1)

• Patient on Nattokinase supplement (Neprinol)

• Major complications: 3/90 (3.3%)• Jugular vein thrombosis after

angioplasty

Conclusions

• Vein stenoses are common in MS patients

• Endovascular intervention is safe• 7% complication rate and most minor• No deaths related to the procedure

• Symptom relief: 55.5%

Conclusions

• The CCSVI concept deserves further study

• Well organized, multidisciplinary prospective trials should be conducted to further understand and validate this concept