Background and Objectives: There is no dedicated occlusive device for closing coronary artery fistulas (CAFs), and specific efficacy and safety data of various off-label occlusive devices for CAFs closure are scarce. Methods: Patients undergoing transcatheter closure of CAFs from January 2011 to December 2022 were included in the single-center retrospective study. The study population was divided into 2 groups: coils group (n=35) and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) occluders group (n=66). Results: No significant intergroup differences were observed in demographic characteristics except age. The presence of multiple CAF origins (54.3% vs. 4.5%, p<0.001) and multiple draining sites (51.4% vs. 3.0%, p<0.001) were more common in the coils group. In contrast, the presence of aneurysm (72.7% vs. 14.3%, p<0.001), and large fistula (75.8% vs. 37.1%, p<0.001) were more prevalent in the PDA occluders group. The acute procedural success rate of the PDA occluders group was higher compared to that of the coils group (87.9% vs.62.9%, adjusted odds ratio [OR], 7.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.59–32.64; p=0.01).In addition, no significant intergroup differences were noted in both the recanalization rate (7.8% vs. 20%, p=0.107) and the reintervention rate (3.1% vs. 8.6%, p=0.342). Conclusions Transcatheter closure of CAFs using PDA occluders was associated with significantly higher acute procedural success rates compared to coil embolization with comparable late outcomes.

Background and Objectives: There is no dedicated occlusive device for closing coronary artery fistulas (CAFs), and specific efficacy and safety data of various off-label occlusive devices for CAFs closure are scarce. Methods: Patients undergoing transcatheter closure of CAFs from January 2011 to December 2022 were included in the single-center retrospective study. The study population was divided into 2 groups: coils group (n=35) and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) occluders group (n=66). Results: No significant intergroup differences were observed in demographic characteristics except age. The presence of multiple CAF origins (54.3% vs. 4.5%, p<0.001) and multiple draining sites (51.4% vs. 3.0%, p<0.001) were more common in the coils group. In contrast, the presence of aneurysm (72.7% vs. 14.3%, p<0.001), and large fistula (75.8% vs. 37.1%, p<0.001) were more prevalent in the PDA occluders group. The acute procedural success rate of the PDA occluders group was higher compared to that of the coils group (87.9% vs.62.9%, adjusted odds ratio [OR], 7.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.59–32.64; p=0.01).In addition, no significant intergroup differences were noted in both the recanalization rate (7.8% vs. 20%, p=0.107) and the reintervention rate (3.1% vs. 8.6%, p=0.342). Conclusions Transcatheter closure of CAFs using PDA occluders was associated with significantly higher acute procedural success rates compared to coil embolization with comparable late outcomes.

Background and Objectives: There is no dedicated occlusive device for closing coronary artery fistulas (CAFs), and specific efficacy and safety data of various off-label occlusive devices for CAFs closure are scarce. Methods: Patients undergoing transcatheter closure of CAFs from January 2011 to December 2022 were included in the single-center retrospective study. The study population was divided into 2 groups: coils group (n=35) and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) occluders group (n=66). Results: No significant intergroup differences were observed in demographic characteristics except age. The presence of multiple CAF origins (54.3% vs. 4.5%, p<0.001) and multiple draining sites (51.4% vs. 3.0%, p<0.001) were more common in the coils group. In contrast, the presence of aneurysm (72.7% vs. 14.3%, p<0.001), and large fistula (75.8% vs. 37.1%, p<0.001) were more prevalent in the PDA occluders group. The acute procedural success rate of the PDA occluders group was higher compared to that of the coils group (87.9% vs.62.9%, adjusted odds ratio [OR], 7.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.59–32.64; p=0.01).In addition, no significant intergroup differences were noted in both the recanalization rate (7.8% vs. 20%, p=0.107) and the reintervention rate (3.1% vs. 8.6%, p=0.342). Conclusions Transcatheter closure of CAFs using PDA occluders was associated with significantly higher acute procedural success rates compared to coil embolization with comparable late outcomes.

Background and Objectives: There is no dedicated occlusive device for closing coronary artery fistulas (CAFs), and specific efficacy and safety data of various off-label occlusive devices for CAFs closure are scarce. Methods: Patients undergoing transcatheter closure of CAFs from January 2011 to December 2022 were included in the single-center retrospective study. The study population was divided into 2 groups: coils group (n=35) and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) occluders group (n=66). Results: No significant intergroup differences were observed in demographic characteristics except age. The presence of multiple CAF origins (54.3% vs. 4.5%, p<0.001) and multiple draining sites (51.4% vs. 3.0%, p<0.001) were more common in the coils group. In contrast, the presence of aneurysm (72.7% vs. 14.3%, p<0.001), and large fistula (75.8% vs. 37.1%, p<0.001) were more prevalent in the PDA occluders group. The acute procedural success rate of the PDA occluders group was higher compared to that of the coils group (87.9% vs.62.9%, adjusted odds ratio [OR], 7.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.59–32.64; p=0.01).In addition, no significant intergroup differences were noted in both the recanalization rate (7.8% vs. 20%, p=0.107) and the reintervention rate (3.1% vs. 8.6%, p=0.342). Conclusions Transcatheter closure of CAFs using PDA occluders was associated with significantly higher acute procedural success rates compared to coil embolization with comparable late outcomes.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to describe utilization, demographics, complications, and revisions for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with stenosis undergoing decompression or decompression with fusion in the United States. Methods: A national insurance database was used to identify patients who underwent either decompression and fusion or decompression alone for management of DS from 2010–2022. Utilization trends, demographics, and complications for each procedure were compared. Results: A total of 162,878 patients were identified, of which 78,043 patients underwent combined single-level lumbar decompression and fusion and 84,835 underwent single-level lumbar decompression alone. Between 2010–2021, lumbar decompression and fusion became the predominant surgical intervention for DS in 2016 and continued to account for more than half of all procedures during the remainder of the study period. Factors such as age, sex, comorbidities, geographic region, and physician specialty training were associated with procedure choice. Decompression with fusion was associated with a lower risk of revision surgery up to 5 years postoperatively and an overall lower incidence of 30-day complications. Conclusion Decompression with fusion has become the most common treatment for lumbar DS over the past decade despite a lack of compelling evidence supporting its use compared to decompression alone. A variety of patient and surgeon-specific factors is associated with procedure choice. After accounting for cofounders, we identified treatment-specific complications that may be valuable when counseling patients.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to describe utilization, demographics, complications, and revisions for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with stenosis undergoing decompression or decompression with fusion in the United States. Methods: A national insurance database was used to identify patients who underwent either decompression and fusion or decompression alone for management of DS from 2010–2022. Utilization trends, demographics, and complications for each procedure were compared. Results: A total of 162,878 patients were identified, of which 78,043 patients underwent combined single-level lumbar decompression and fusion and 84,835 underwent single-level lumbar decompression alone. Between 2010–2021, lumbar decompression and fusion became the predominant surgical intervention for DS in 2016 and continued to account for more than half of all procedures during the remainder of the study period. Factors such as age, sex, comorbidities, geographic region, and physician specialty training were associated with procedure choice. Decompression with fusion was associated with a lower risk of revision surgery up to 5 years postoperatively and an overall lower incidence of 30-day complications. Conclusion Decompression with fusion has become the most common treatment for lumbar DS over the past decade despite a lack of compelling evidence supporting its use compared to decompression alone. A variety of patient and surgeon-specific factors is associated with procedure choice. After accounting for cofounders, we identified treatment-specific complications that may be valuable when counseling patients.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to describe utilization, demographics, complications, and revisions for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with stenosis undergoing decompression or decompression with fusion in the United States. Methods: A national insurance database was used to identify patients who underwent either decompression and fusion or decompression alone for management of DS from 2010–2022. Utilization trends, demographics, and complications for each procedure were compared. Results: A total of 162,878 patients were identified, of which 78,043 patients underwent combined single-level lumbar decompression and fusion and 84,835 underwent single-level lumbar decompression alone. Between 2010–2021, lumbar decompression and fusion became the predominant surgical intervention for DS in 2016 and continued to account for more than half of all procedures during the remainder of the study period. Factors such as age, sex, comorbidities, geographic region, and physician specialty training were associated with procedure choice. Decompression with fusion was associated with a lower risk of revision surgery up to 5 years postoperatively and an overall lower incidence of 30-day complications. Conclusion Decompression with fusion has become the most common treatment for lumbar DS over the past decade despite a lack of compelling evidence supporting its use compared to decompression alone. A variety of patient and surgeon-specific factors is associated with procedure choice. After accounting for cofounders, we identified treatment-specific complications that may be valuable when counseling patients.