Retrospective Comparison of Pulmonary Arteriovenous Malformation Embolization with the Polytetrafluoroethylene-Covered Nitinol Microvascular Plug, AMPLATZER Plug, and Coils in Patients with Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia

Abstract Purpose To evaluate effectiveness of the polytetrafluoroethylene-covered nitinol mesh microvascular plug (MVP) and compare it with other devices in pulmonary arteriovenous malformation (PAVM) embolization in patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT). Materials and Methods Twenty-five patients (average age 35 y; range, 15–56 y) with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) and de novo PAVM embolization with at least 1 MVP between November 2015 and May 2017 were retrospectively evaluated. Retrospective data were also obtained from prior embolization procedures in the same patient population with other embolic devices dating back to 2008. Technical success, complications, PAVM persistence rates, and category of persistence were analyzed. Results In 25 patients, 157 PAVMs were treated: 92 with MVP, 35 with AMPLATZER vascular plug (AVP), 6 with AVP plus coils, and 24 with coils. The per-PAVM technical success rates were 100% with MVP; 97%, AVP; 100%, AVP plus coils; and 100%, coils. PAVM persistence rates and median follow-up were as follows: MVP, 2% (1/92) (510 d); AVP, 15% (3/20) (1,447 d); AVP plus coils, 20% (1/5) (1,141 d); coils, 46.7% (7/15) (1,141 d). Persistence owing to recanalization for MVP, AVP, AVP plus coils, and coils was 2%, 15%, 0%, and 33%. No difference was found between persistence rates of MVP vs AVP (P = .098). Embolization with a vascular plug (MVP or AVP) with or without coils had a statistically significant lower persistence rate (5.4%) than embolization with coils alone (46.7%) (P = .022). Conclusions PAVM embolization with MVP had a high technical success rate and a low persistence rate comparable to AVP and lower than coil embolization alone.