Comparison of the Effectiveness of Embolic Agents for Bronchial Artery Embolization: Gelfoam Versus Polyvinyl Alcohol
Overview
Affiliations
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the results of different agents for bronchial artery embolization of hemoptysis.
Materials And Methods: From March 1992 to December 2006, a bronchial artery embolization was performed on 430 patients with hemoptysis. The patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 included 74 patients treated with a gelfoam particle (1 x 1 x 1 mm), while group 2 comprised of 205 patients treated with polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) at 355-500 microm, and group 3 included 151 patients treated with PVA at 500-710 microm. We categorized the results as technical and clinical successes, and also included the mid-term results. Retrospectively, the technical success was compared immediately after the procedure. The clinical success and mid-term results (percentage of patients who were free of hemoptysis) were compared at 1 and 12 months after the procedure, respectively.
Results: Neither the technical successes (group 1; 85%, 2; 85%, 3; 90%) nor the clinical successes (group 1; 72%, 2; 74%, 3; 71%) showed a significant difference among the 3 groups (p > 0.05). However, the mid-term results (group 1; 45%, 2; 63%, 3; 62%) and mid-term results excluding the recurrence from collateral vessels in each of the groups (group 1; 1 patient, 2; 4 patients, 3; 2 patients) showed that group 1 was lower than the other two groups (p < 0.05). No significant difference was discovered for the mid-term results between groups 2 and 3. Moreover, the same results not including incidences of recurrence from collateral vessels also showed no statistical significance between the two groups (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: Polyvinyl alcohol appears to be the more optimal modality compared to gelfoam particle for bronchial artery embolization in order to improve the mid-term results. The material size of PVA needs to be selected to match with the vascular diameter.
Tao Y, Li J, Su R, Zhou M, Zhu H, Sun Z Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2024; 14(5):859-877.
PMID: 39513143 PMC: 11538829. DOI: 10.21037/cdt-24-157.
Suzuki K, Kai R, Hirano T, Yagi M, Dohi K Intern Emerg Med. 2024; 19(7):2079-2080.
PMID: 38773053 PMC: 11467078. DOI: 10.1007/s11739-024-03647-y.
Fukamatsu F, Yamada A, Yamada K, Nonaka T, Aonuma T, Tsukahara Y Jpn J Radiol. 2023; 42(5):460-467.
PMID: 38148339 PMC: 11056326. DOI: 10.1007/s11604-023-01520-0.
Singhal R, K B S, Naranje P, Kazimi J, Garg P, Chandra D Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2023; 33(3):361-372.
PMID: 37362365 PMC: 10289864. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1762552.
Nagano N, Suzuki M, Yamamoto S, Kobayashi K, Iikura M, Izumi S Glob Health Med. 2023; 4(6):315-321.
PMID: 36589217 PMC: 9773223. DOI: 10.35772/ghm.2022.01057.