Yonago Acta Medica
Online ISSN : 1346-8049
ISSN-L : 0513-5710
Original Article
Compressed Amplatzer Vascular Plug II Embolization of the Left Subclavian Artery for Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair is Efficient and Safety Method Comparable to Conventional Coil Embolization
Kensuke MatsumotoYasufumi OhuchiShinsaku YataAkira AdachiMasayuki EndoShohei TakasugiShinya FujiiMasayuki HashimotoToshio KaminouToshihide OgawaYoshikazu FujiwaraMunehiro SaikiMotonobu Nishimura
Author information

2019 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages 024-029


Background Left subclavian artery (LSA) embolization is occasionally required to prevent type II endoleak in the thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) procedure. This is a retrospective study comparing compressed Amplatzer Vascular Plug II embolization (CAE) and conventional coil embolization (CCE) in preventing retrograde flow into the aneurysmal sac through the LSA after TEVAR.

Methods We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who underwent CAE or CCE of the LSA during TEVAR from June 2013 to March 2016 in our hospital. The efficacy, safety and cost of each method were compared between two groups.

Results Thirty patients underwent LSA embolization during TEVAR. Six CCEs in 6 patients were performed from June 2013 to November 2013, while twenty-four CAEs in 24 patients were performed from December 2013 to March 2016. Technical success was achieved in all patients in both groups. No embolization-related complications or type II endoleaks from LSA were recorded during the follow-up period in all patients. In both groups, all embolic materials were detected in the proximal portion of the LSA from the LSA orifice to the vertebral artery origin and no vertebral artery occlusions were detected. The mean compression ratio of AVP II was 58 ± 5.9% of predicted length of standard procedure. In the CAE group, one AVP II was sufficient to achieve complete LSA occlusion in all patients. On the other hand, multiple coils (10.2 ± 2.7) were used in the CCE group (P < .01), resulting in a significantly lower cost incurred in the CAE group (CAE: 129,000 JPY vs. CCE: 639,600 ± 140,060 JPY; P < .01).

Conclusion The CAE is a useful and cost-effective procedure for TEVAR-related LSA embolization.

Content from these authors
© 2019 Tottori University Faculty of Medicine
Previous article Next article