BackgroundVascular embolism is a severe complication following hyaluronic acid (HA) filler injections, with hyaluronidase injection being the most effective treatment. The nasal region, including the nose and nasolabial fold, is the most common site of vascular embolism after facial HA injections. Currently, there is insufficient clinical evidence regarding the benefits of facial artery thrombolysis.ObjectivesThis article aimed to evaluate the efficacy of hyaluronidase injection via the facial artery as an emergency treatment for vascular embolism induced by facial aesthetic HA fillers.MethodsWe reviewed 14 patients who experienced nasal vascular embolism following facial HA filler injections. All 14 patients underwent percutaneous facial artery thrombolysis with a combination of hyaluronidase and urokinase administered intravascularly. For patients with longer occlusion duration and severe necrosis, femoral artery interventional thrombolysis was performed, with local injection of platelet-rich plasma to promote recovery. Follow-up ranged from 1 month to 1 year.ResultsFollowing facial artery hyaluronidase injection, all cases showed improvement in nasal skin lesions. Twelve patients fully recovered, while 2 patients were left with minor superficial scars and defects in the nasal wings.ConclusionsEarly thrombolysis postnasal embolism is crucial, and percutaneous facial artery puncture is an effective emergency treatment. Arterial intervention targeting the facial artery in the nasolabial fold may offer more precise thrombolysis. The combined use of hyaluronidase and urokinase is both safe and effective.

2024-11-01·Asian Journal of Surgery

Intermittent urokinase injection for the management of encapsulated pleural effusion via closed drainage catheter: A case report

Letter

作者: Chen, Wei ; Lin, Liangkang ; Yang, Mei ; Yang, Fan

2024-07-01·Annals of Vascular Surgery

A Retrospective Study Comparing Pharmacomechanical Thrombectomy with Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Deep Venous Thrombosis

Article

作者: Qiu, Jiehua ; Zeng, Xiande ; Zhu, Xianhua ; Zhou, WeiMin ; Ju, ZhiNan ; Zeng, Xiong ; Dai, KangHui ; Min, XiXi ; Chen, Wei

BACKGROUNDThis study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the clinical efficacy and safety between pharmacomechanical thrombectomy (PMT) and catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) in the context of acute lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis (LEDVT).METHODSA retrospective review of our institution's patient database spanning from February 2011 to December 2019 was performed to identify cases of acute LEDVT. The patients were categorized into 2 distinct groups based on the thrombolytic interventions administered: the PMT group, specifically denoting PMT with AngioJet in our investigation, and the CDT group. Comprehensive data sets encompassing patient demographics, risk factors, procedural specifics, thrombolysis grading, and complications were collected. Subsequent follow-up evaluations at the 2-year mark posttreatment included assessments of postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) and the quality of life.RESULTSAmong the 348 patients identified (mean age: 50.12 ± 15.87 years; 194 females), 200 underwent CDT during the early stage (2011 to 2017), while 148 received PMT between 2017 and 2019. Baseline data between the 2 groups exhibited no statistically significant differences. Thrombus scores significantly decreased in both cohorts posttherapy (each P < 0.001).Patients subjected to PMT demonstrated higher thrombolysis rates (77.35 ± 9.44% vs. 50.85 ± 6.72%), reduced administration of the thrombolytic agent urokinase [20 (20€20) vs. 350 (263€416), P < 0.001], larger limb circumference differences (above the knee: 6.03 ± 1.76 cm vs. 4.51 ± 1.82 cm, P < 0.001; below the knee: 2.90 ± 1.16 cm vs. 2.51 ± 0.90 cm, P < 0.001), and shorter lengths of stay (7.19 ± 3.11 days vs. 12.33 ± 4.77 days, P < 0.001). However, the PMT group exhibited a higher decline in hemoglobin levels (13.41 ± 10.59 g/L vs. 10.88 ± 11.41 g/L, P = 0.038) and an increase in creatinine levels [9.58 (2.32€15.82) umol/L vs. 4.53 (2.87€6.08) umol/L, P < 0.001] compared to the CDT group. No statistically significant differences were observed in the numbers of balloon angioplasty, stent implantation (each P > 0.050), and minor and major complications between the 2 groups. At the 1-year follow-up, PTS occurred in 13.51% of the PMT group compared to 26% of the CDT group (P = 0.025), with a higher incidence of moderate-severe PTS in the CDT group (8% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.036). At the 2-year follow-up, PTS was observed in 16.2% of the PMT group and 31.5% in the CDT group, P = 0.004. Preoperative and postoperative D-values of 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Summary and SF-36 Mental Component Summary showed no statistically significant between-group differences.CONCLUSIONSIn our institutional experience, both PMT and CDT have proven to be effective and safe therapeutic approaches for managing acute LEDVT. PMT, in particular, demonstrated superior efficacy in achieving thrombosis resolution and mitigating the risk of PTS, affirming its role as a favorable intervention in this clinical context.

100 项与尿激酶(Mochida Pharmaceutical) 相关的药物交易

登录后查看更多信息