Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jan 3:15910199231217549.
doi: 10.1177/15910199231217549. Online ahead of print.

Indications for alternative endovascular techniques in carotid-cavernous fistulas: A 20-year single-center experience

Affiliations

Indications for alternative endovascular techniques in carotid-cavernous fistulas: A 20-year single-center experience

Richard Voldřich et al. Interv Neuroradiol. .

Abstract

Background: While coiling is considered the standard treatment for carotid-cavernous fistulas (CCFs), studies demonstrating excellent results using new materials, especially flow diverter (FD) stents and liquid embolisates, are becoming more frequent. The indications and effectiveness of these alternative endovascular techniques remain unclear.

Methods: A total of 22 direct and 20 indirect CCFs were included in the study. These were further subdivided based on the embolic material used: coils versus FD stents for direct and coils versus liquid embolisates for indirect CCFs. The subgroups were subjected to statistical analysis.

Results: An angiographic cure was achieved in 88% of all CCFs, 93% of patients' experienced clinical improvement or remained stable. Direct CCFs were treated with coiling (41%) or with both coils and FD stents (55%). One (4%) patient with a direct CCF was treated with FD stent alone. Statistical analysis comparing these subgroups revealed a significantly higher complete occlusion rate immediately after treatment in the coiling subgroup (67% vs. 23%, p = 0.0409). The occlusion rates at the last follow-up were similar (89% vs. 85%). Indirect CCFs were treated with coiling (35%) or liquid embolisates (65%). All three periprocedural ischemic complications were recorded within the liquid subgroup, resulting in a significantly higher clinical deterioration rate (p = 0.0333).

Conclusion: FD stents in direct and liquid embolisates in indirect fistulas did not demonstrate better angiographic or clinical outcomes compared to convetional coiling. Liquid agents carried a higher risk of ischemic complications. Alternative embolization materials should be reserved for CCFs that cannot be treated with simple coiling.

Keywords: Carotid-cavernous fistula; embolization; flow-diverter devices; liquid embolisates.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Illustrative case of flow diversion in direct fistula. Upper left: postraumatic direct carotid-cavernous fistula shown on angiogram, anteroposterior view; upper right: unsatisfactory result after transarterial coiling (black arrow) with persistent high-flow venous drainage (empty arrows) shown on angiogram, anteroposterior view; lower left: anteroposterior X-ray scan after coiling (black arrow) and flow-diverter (white arrows) insertion; lower right: follow-up angiogram, anteroposterior view, demonstrating complete closure of the fistula.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Ilustrative case of liquid embolic agent use in indirect fistula. Upper left: indirect carotid-cavernous fistula with superior ophthalmic vein drainage (black arrow) and cortical venous drainage (empty arrow), angiogram, lateral view; upper right: unsatisfactory result after transvenous coiling (white arrow) with persistent high-flow venous drainage (black arrow), angiogram, lateral view; lower left: subsequent use of liquid embolic agent (white arrows), angiogram, lateral view; lower right: Complete occlusion of the fistula on follow-up angiogram, lateral view.

Similar articles

References

    1. Barrow DL, Spector RH, Landman JA, et al. Classification and treatment of spontaneous carotid-cavernous sinus fistulas. J Neurosurg 1985; 62: 248–256. - PubMed
    1. d’Angelo VA, Monte V, Scialfa G, et al. Intracerebral venous hemorrhage in “high-risk” carotid-cavernous fistula. Surg Neurol 1988; 30: 387–390. - PubMed
    1. Ellis JA, Goldstein H, Connolly ES, Jr, et al. Carotid-cavernous fistulas. Neurosurg Focus 2012; 32: E9. - PubMed
    1. Lang M, Habboub G, Mullin JP, et al. A brief history of carotid-cavernous fistula. J Neurosurg 2016; 126: 1995–2001. - PubMed
    1. Serbinenko FA. Balloon catheterization and occlusion of major cerebral vessels. J Neurosurg 1974; 41: 125–145. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources