Search

Objective: To describe causes, clinical signs, experience and endovascular techniques for extraction of intravenous foreign bodies (IFB) and literature review., Methods: This retrospective study was based on data collected from the medical records of 51 consecutive patients (26 women and 25 men) treated from July 2007 to May 2020 at a single quaternary center in Brazil and case series with data, published in the literature since 2000 on IFB removal, of at least 5 patients. The average patient age was 43.54 years (range, 2 months to 84 years). The different retrieval method using the following was used in the procedure: gooseneck snare, guidewire, balloon, and custom snares., Results: The retrieval process rate was 100%. Thirty-one port-a-caths, 6 guidewires, 4 double lumens, 3 permcaths, 3 Shiley® catheters, 1 intra cath, 2 peripherally inserted central catheters, and one stent were extracted. The locations where the IFBs were most frequently trapped were the right atrium (39.2%), the pulmonary artery (17.64%), the superior vena cava (13.72%), and the right ventricle (16.12%). Single venous access was used in 67.07% of the patients. Femoral access, which was the most commonly used approach, was used in 85.71% of the patients. The loop was used in 64.70% of the patients. A fractured catheter was the main IFB in 60.76% of the cases (31 patients). Only one complication related to the extraction of an IFB was noted in a single patient who suffered from atrial fibrillation (1.96%). The 30 day mortality rate was zero., Conclusion: Percutaneous IFB removal should be considered as an alternative for the treatment and retrieval of IFBs because it is a minimally invasive procedure that is relatively simple, safe, and has low complication rates., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)