Complications in digital subtraction angiography: initial three years of experience

Abstract

Purpose: In this study, we describe the complications we encountered during digital subtraction angiographies (DSA) in our initial three years of experience and evaluate the risk factors in our patient population. Materials and methods: A series of 507 patients with different pathological processes were diagnosed via DSA in our institution from April 2019 through May 2022 and were retrospectively evaluated. During DSA, the date of the procedure, patient age, gender, comorbidities, catheter types, number of catheters used, and all procedure-related complications were recorded, even if they did not cause any neurological sequelae. Complications were categorized as neurological, non-neurological, or local. Results: Our study included a total of 507 patients. Of these, 256 (50.5%) were male, and 251 (49.5%) were female. The mean age of patients was 49.2 years (range 5-91). The most preexisting comorbidity in patients was hypertension (22.5%). Of 507 patients, a total of 10 patients had either a neurological complication, radiological complication, or angio-site-related complication, and the overall rate of complications was 0.02%. In 6 patients with neurological complications, 3 (0.6%) had permanent neurological deficits, and 3 (0.6%) had transient deficits. In 4 patients with non-neurological complications, asymptomatic vasospasms were encountered in two cases; internal carotid artery (ICA) dissection was experienced in one case, and scrotal hematoma was observed in one case. Conclusion: Complications following DSA are rare but must be minimized with knowledge of the characteristics of the patients and determining the proper indication. Although the risk is low, complications such as thromboembolism can cause permanent neurological deficits and even death.

Keywords

• Digital subtraction angiography
• neurological complication
• non-neurological complication
• catheter
• vasospasm

Dijital substraksiyon anjiografide komplikasyonlar: ilk üç yıllık deneyim

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada ilk üç yıllık deneyimimiz boyunca dijital substraksiyon anjiyografilerde (DSA) karşılaştığımız komplikasyonlar anlatılmış olup, hasta popülasyonumuzdaki risk faktörleri değerlendirilmiştir. Gereç ve yöntem: Kurumumuzda Nisan 2019'dan Mayıs 2022'ye kadar farklı patolojilere sahip 507 hastaya DSA işlemi uygulandı ve sonuçlar retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Anjiyografi sırasında herhangi bir nörolojik sekel saptanmasa bile işlem tarihi, hastanın yaşı, cinsiyeti, yandaş hastalıkları, kateter tipleri, kullanılan kateter sayısı ve işleme bağlı tüm komplikasyonlar kaydedildi. Komplikasyonlar nörolojik, nörolojik olmayan veya lokal olarak kategorize edildi. Bulgular: Çalışmamıza toplam 507 hasta dahil edildi. Hastaların 256'sı (%50,5) erkek, 251'i (%49,5) kadın olmakla beraber, ortalama yaşı 49,2 (5-91 arası) olarak saptandı. Primer patolojilere en çok eşlik eden hastalığın hipertansiyon olduğu görüldü (%22,5). 507 hastadan toplam 10 hastada nörolojik komplikasyon, radyolojik komplikasyon veya anjiyo bölgesine bağlı komplikasyon görüldü ve genel komplikasyon oranı %0,02 olarak bulundu. Nörolojik komplikasyon gelişen 6 hastanın 3'ünde (%0,6) kalıcı nörolojik defisit, 3'ünde (%0,6) ise geçici nörolojik defisit saptandı. Nörolojik olmayan komplikasyon gelişen 4 hastada iki olguda asemptomatik vazospazm, bir olguda internal karotid arter (İKA) diseksiyonu, bir olguda skrotal hematom gözlendi. Sonuç: Dijital substraksiyon anjiografi esnasında komplikasyonlarla nadir olarak karşılaşılsa bile hastaların özelliklerinin bilinmesi ve uygun endikasyonun belirlenmesi ile komplikasyon oranı en az seviyeye indirilebilir. Risk oranının düşük olmasına ragmen tromboembolizm gibi komplikasyonlar kalıcı nörolojik defisitlere ve hatta ölüme neden olabilir.

Keywords

• Dijital substraksiyon anjiografi
• nörolojik komplikasyon
• nörolojik olmayan komplikasyon
• kateter
• vazospazm

References

1. 1. Hoeffner EG, Mukherji SK, Srinivasan A, Quint DJ. Neuroradiology Back to the Future: Brain Imaging. Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:5-11. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A2936
2. 2. Antunes JL. Egas Moniz and cerebral angiography. J Neurosurg 1974;40:427-432. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1974.40.4.0427
3. 3. Doby T, Moniz E. Angiography and Egas Moniz. 1995:1992. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1974.40.4.0427
4. 4. Artico M, Spoletini M, Fumagalli L, et al. Egas Moniz: 90 years (1927–2017) from cerebral angiography. Front Neuroanat 2017;11:1-6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnana.2017.00081
5. 5. Alakbarzade V, Pereira AC. Cerebral catheter angiography and its complications. Pract Neurol 2018;18:393-398. https://doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2018-001986
6. 6. Bechan RS, van Rooij SB, Sprengers ME, et al. CT angiography versus 3D rotational angiography in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neuroradiology 2015;57:1239-1246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-015-1590-9
7. 7. Heit JJ, Pastena GT, Nogueira RG, et al. Cerebral angiography for evaluation of patients with CT angiogram-negative subarachnoid hemorrhage: an 11-year experience. Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:297-304. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4503
8. 8. Arıcı M, Civlan S, Yakar F. Diagnostik Serebral Anjiografi. Durmaz r, Editör. Subaraknoid Kanama ve Serebral Anevrizmalar. 1. Baskı. Ankara: Türkiye Klinikleri; 2022. Available at: https://www.turkiyeklinikleri.com/article/en-diagnostik-serebral-anjiografi-101573.html. Accessed December 12, 2022

9. 9. Civlan S, Yakar F, Coskun ME, Sato K. Endovascular occlusion of giant serpentine aneurysm: a case report and literature review. J Cerebrovasc Endovasc Neurosurg 2022;24:51-57. https://doi.org/10.7461/jcen.2022.E2021.06.003
10. 10. Egemen E, Yakar F, Civlan S, Güngör O, Akçay G. Spontaneous intracranial internal carotid artery dissection in an adolescent after heavy exercise. Child's Nerv Syst 2021;37:2959-2961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-021-05334-1
11. 11. Yakar F, Elbir Ç, Civlan S, et al. Flow diverter stent treatment for unruptured supraclinoid segment internal carotid artery aneurysms: a Turkish multicenter study. Neurosurg Focus 2023;54:e1-7. https://doi.org/10.3171/2023.2.FOCUS22649
12. 12. Kaufmann TJ, Huston J, Mandrekar JN, Schleck CD, Thielen KR, Kallmes DF. Complications of diagnostic cerebral angiography: evaluation of 19 826 consecutive patients 1. Radiology 2007;243:812-819. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2433060536
13. 13. Earnest F, Forbes G, Sandok BA, et al. Complications of cerebral angiography: prospective assessment of risk. Am J Roentgenol 1984;142:247-253. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.142.2.247
14. 14. Olivecrona H. Complications of cerebral angiography. Neuroradiology 1977;14:175-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00496981
15. 15. Dawkins AA, Evans AL, Wattam J, et al. Complications of cerebral angiography: a prospective analysis of 2,924 consecutive procedures. Neuroradiology 2007;49:753-759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-007-0252-y
16. 16. Feild JR, Robertson JT, Desaussure RL. Complications of cerebral angiography in 2,000 consecutive cases. J Neurosurg 1962;19:775-781. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1962.19.9.0775
17. 17. Fifi JT, Meyers PM, Lavine SD, et al. Complications of modern diagnostic cerebral angiography in an academic medical center. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009;20:442-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2009.01.012
18. 18. Hoffman CE, Santillan A, Rotman L, Gobin YP, Souweidane MM. Complications of cerebral angiography in children younger than 3 years of age: clinical article. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2014;13:414-419. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.12.PEDS13172
19. 19. Mani RL, Eisenberg RL, McDonald EJ, Pollock JA, Mani JR. Complications of catheter cerebral arteriography: analysis of 5,000 procedures. 1. Criteria and incidence. Am J Roentgenol 1978;131:861-865. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.131.5.861
20. 20. Dion JE, Gates PC, Fox AJ, Barnett HJ, Blom RJ. Clinical events following neuroangiography: a prospective study. Stroke 1987;18:997-1004. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.18.6.997
21. 21. Waugh JR, Sacharias N. Arteriographic complications in the DSA era. Radiology 1992;182:243-246. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.182.1.1727290
22. 22. Oneissi M, Sweid A, Tjoumakaris S, et al. Access-site complications in transfemoral neuroendovascular procedures: a systematic review of incidence rates and management strategies. Oper Neurosurg 2020;19:353-363. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opaa096
23. 23. Thiex R, Norbash AM, Frerichs KU. The safety of dedicated-team catheter-based diagnostic cerebral angiography in the era of advanced noninvasive imaging. Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:230-234. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1803
24. 24. Grzyska U, Freitag J, Zeumer H. Selective cerebral intraarterial DSA. Complication rate and control of risk factors. Neuroradiology 1990;32:296-299. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00593048
25. 25. Wong GKC, Siu DYW, Ahuja AT, et al. Comparisons of DSA and MR angiography with digital subtraction angiography in 151 patients with subacute spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. J Clin Neurosci 2010;17:601-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2009.09.022
26. 26. Willinsky RA, Taylor SM, TerBrugge K, Farb RI, Tomlinson G, Montanera W. Neurologic complications of cerebral angiography: prospective analysis of 2,899 procedures and review of the literature. Radiology 2003;227:522-528. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2272012071
27. 27. Heiserman JE, Dean BL, Hodak JA, et al. Neurologic complications of cerebral angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:1401-1411.
28. 28. Cloft HJ, Joseph GJ, Dion JE. Risk of cerebral angiography in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, cerebral aneurysm, and arteriovenous malformation: a meta-analysis. Stroke 1999;30:317-320. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.30.2.317
29. 29. Kim DY, Park JC, Kim JK, et al. Microembolism after endovascular treatment of unruptured cerebral aneurysms: reduction of its incidence by microcatheter lumen aspiration. Neurointervention 2015;10:67-73. https://doi.org/10.5469/neuroint.2015.10.2.67
30. 30. Hu YC, Deshmukh VR, Albuquerque FC, et al. Histopathological assessment of fatal ipsilateral intraparenchymal hemorrhages after the treatment of supraclinoid aneurysms with the Pipeline Embolization Device. J Neurosurg 2014;120:365-374. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.11.JNS131599
31. 31. Cloft HJ, Jensen ME, Kallmes DF, Dion JE. Arterial dissections complicating cerebral angiography and cerebrovascular interventions. Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:541-545.
32. 32. Kerber CW, Cromwell LD, Drayer BP, Bank WO. Cerebral ischemia. I. Current angiographic techniques, complications, and safety. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1978;130:1097-1103. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.130.6.1097
33. 33. Eisenberg RL, Bank WO, Hedgcock MW. Neurologic complications of angiography in patients with critical stenosis of the carotid artery. Neurology 1980;30:892-895. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.30.8.892
34. 34. Krings T, Willmes K, Becker R, et al. Silent microemboli related to diagnostic cerebral angiography: a matter of operator's experience and patient's disease. Neuroradiology 2006;48:387-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-006-0074-3
35. 35. Bendszus M, Koltzenburg M, Burger R, Warmuth Metz M, Hofmann E, Solymosi L. Silent embolism in diagnostic cerebral angiography and neurointerventional procedures: a prospective study. Lancet 1999;354:1594-1597. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)07083-X
36. 36. Chuah KC, Stuckey SL, Berman IG. Silent embolism in diagnostic cerebral angiography: detection with diffusion-weighted imaging. Australas Radiol 2004;48:133-138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.2004.01273.x