HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cutler, B. S. Articles by Vander Salm, T. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cutler, B. S. Articles by Vander Salm, T. J.

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol 86, 907-911, Copyright © 1983 by The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and The Western Thoracic Surgical Association

ARTICLES

Surgical versus percutaneous removal of the intra-aortic balloon

BS Cutler, ON Okike and TJ Vander Salm

In order to determine the best method for removal of the percutaneous intra-aortic balloon (IAB), we divided 38 patients into two groups. The IAB was removed percutaneously in Group I and surgically in Group II. There were two hemorrhagic and four thrombotic complications sufficiently severe to necessitate vascular surgical intervention in Group I. There were no vascular complications in Group II (p less than 0.1). Among the 19 patients in Group II, eight were found to have acute thrombosis of the superficial or deep femoral artery at the time of operation. It is concluded that thrombus development at the site of IAB insertion is a common event and often leads to acute ischemia. Surgical removal of a percutaneously placed IAB is recommended because it provides an opportunity for the detection and removal of thrombotic material, as well as careful closure of the puncture site.