Embolic Protection in Complex Femoropopliteal Interventions: Safety, Efficacy and Predictors of Filter
Michael Czihal1, Zeynep Findik2,3, Christoph Bernau2
1Division of Vascular Medicine, Medical Clinic and Policlinic IV, Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Pettenkoferstrasse 8a, 80336, Munich, Germany. michael.czihal@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Objectives:
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a filter embolic protection device (FEPD) in endovascular interventions of the femoropopliteal arteries.
Methods:
Patients who underwent endovascular interventions of the femoropopliteal arteries between 2008 and 2016 and in whom the SpiderFXTM FEPD was applied were included in this retrospective study. Clinical and angiographic characteristics, filter macroembolization (FME), device-related complications, distal embolization, as well as the early clinical and hemodynamic outcome, were assessed. Potential risk factors for FME were evaluated by multivariate analysis.
Results:
A total of 244 cases were identified (203 patients, claudication 60.4%, critical limb ischaemia 39.6%, mean lesion length 13.2 ± 12.9 cm, complete occlusions in 72.7%). Balloon angioplasty ± stenting (BAP), directional atherectomy ± balloon angioplasty ± stenting (DA) and rotational thrombectomy ± balloon angioplasty ± stenting (RT) were performed in 141, 61 and 42 cases, respectively. FEPD placement and retrieval were successful in all but one case each. Permanent filter-related vessel damage was not observed. The rate of FME was 37.3% (BAP 36.2%, DA 32.8%, RT 47.7%). Risk factors for FME in the BAP- and DA-group were total occlusion, lesion length > 19 cm, visible thrombus and diabetes mellitus. The distal embolization rate despite filter protection was 4.1 % (BAP 4.9%, DA 1.6%, RT 4.8%) and was higher in cases with FME compared with those without FME (8.7% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.02).
Conclusion:
The Spider FXTM device is safe and effective in capturing embolic debris during femoropopliteal interventions. A residual risk of peripheral embolization remains.
Level Of Evidence:
III, Cohort study.
More Related Videos
08:44Microvascular Embolism Mouse Model for In Vivo Two-photon Microscopy Using Fluorescent Polystyrene Microspheres
Published on: November 21, 2025
10:50Osmotic Drug Delivery to Ischemic Hindlimbs and Perfusion of Vasculature with Microfil for Micro-Computed Tomography Imaging
Published on: June 29, 2013
Related Concept Videos
Pulmonary Embolism II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care
Peripheral Artery Disease V: Postoperative Nursing Management
Pulmonary Embolism III: Nursing Management
Venous Thrombosis I: Introduction
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
