title: Comparison of four embolic materials at uterine artery embolization by using postprocedural MR imaging enhancement.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To test the hypothesis that not all embolic materials are equivalent by using postprocedural magnetic resonance (MR) imaging enhancement of uterine fibroids in patients treated with uterine artery embolization (UAE).
  
  
  METHODS
  Approval and a waiver of consent from the institutional human investigations committee was received for this study. The study was HIPAA compliant. A total of 84 women who underwent 6-month MR imaging follow-up constituted this retrospective study. Within this group, 25 women were treated with Contour polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) particles, 23 were treated with Contour SE particles, 19 were treated with Embosphere microspheres, and 17 were treated with Bead Block microspheres. Pre- and postprocedural MR imaging results were analyzed for the total number of fibroids present in the uterus of each patient and for the percentage of individual fibroid enhancement. Enhancement of individual fibroids was measured with quartile intervals. Greater than 25% residual enhancement of a fibroid after embolization was considered an incomplete infarction. The overall percentage change in enhancement was calculated for each patient. Bivariate analysis by using generalized linear modeling and one-way analysis of variance was used to assess differences in infarction with different embolic materials.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Among patients treated with Contour and Embosphere, there was a mean reduction in enhancement by 76.60% and 83.07%, respectively, compared with a mean reduction of 52.53% and 49.78% in patients treated with Bead Block and Contour SE, respectively. There was a significant difference in postembolization enhancement between Bead Block and Embosphere, Bead Block and Contour, Contour SE and Embosphere, and Contour SE and Contour.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Patients treated with Bead Block or Contour SE demonstrated a reduced degree of infarction at follow-up MR imaging compared with patients treated with Contour or Embosphere.
authors.affiliation: Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520-8042, USA.
authors.forename: Steven D
authors.initials: SD
authors.lastname: Abramowitz
authors.forename: Gary M
authors.initials: GM
authors.lastname: Israel
authors.forename: Shirley M
authors.initials: SM
authors.lastname: McCarthy
authors.forename: Jeffrey S
authors.initials: JS
authors.lastname: Pollak
authors.forename: Robert I
authors.initials: RI
authors.lastname: White
authors.forename: Michael G
authors.initials: MG
authors.lastname: Tal
mesh_terms: D000180:Acrylic Resins / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D000328:Adult; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D005260:Female; D005780:Gelatin / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D006801:Humans; D020100:Hydrogels; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; D007889:Leiomyoma / Q000098:blood supply / Q000473:pathology / Q000628:therapy*; D016014:Linear Models; D053783:Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional; D008875:Middle Aged; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D055357:Uterine Artery Embolization / Q000295:instrumentation*; D014594:Uterine Neoplasms / Q000098:blood supply / Q000473:pathology / Q000628:therapy*
chemical_list: D000180:Acrylic Resins; D020100:Hydrogels; C496735:trisacryl gelatin microspheres; D005780:Gelatin