In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of a compression device in treating angiography-induced FAP compared to conventional ultrasound-guided compression repair. The most important findings of this study were a lower pain score and a higher success rate observed using the new device for FAP compression repair.
The research outcome that was of greater interest was the success rate of the treatment. In this regard, the results showed that the device-assisted repair improved the success rate of FAP treatment by about 50% compared to conventional compression repair. All 11 patients treated with the invented device experienced a successful treatment. However, the success rate was about 45% in the conventional compression group. Although other studies have shown that manual ultrasound-guided compression can achieve a success rate of 90% (
13), the majority of studies conducted since 1991, when Kus et al. introduced manual ultrasound-guided compression, have reported a success rate of 57% to 99% (
14). Therefore, considering the workload and environmental stressors in a tertiary hospital, achieving a success rate of 45% for manual ultrasound-guided compression is not unexpected. This result highlights that the success rate of manual ultrasound-guided compression depends not only on patient- and disease-related parameters but also on therapist-related factors such as fatigue. Indeed, several studies have reported that manual compression may induce operator fatigue and reduce the accuracy and success rate of the procedure (
2,
5). Using compression devices to apply pressure was intended to address this issue. Another explanation for the lower success rate of manual compression in the current study is that all our patients in both groups were receiving anti-thrombotic medication, which has been reported as a significant risk factor for ultrasound guided compression repair failure in the post-procedural period (
15).
There is also little discussion in the literature regarding the number of attempts in compression repair. The only remarkable result in our study was that none of the pseudoaneurysms in the manual compression group was successfully occluded after the third attempt. One explanation is that the prolonged procedure makes it technically difficult to hold the probe at a similar location and produce constant compression.
Fellmeth et al. first attempted to use C-clamp assistance to hold the transducer in the optimal compression site and reduce operator fatigue. The authors reported a success rate of 71 to 92%. However, the mean time for the procedure was 59 minutes, during which the ultrasound unit could not be moved (
16).
Trerotalo used FemoStop (Upsala, Sweden), a compression device, to treat pseudoaneurysms. Water was used to fill the device’s cushion to partially monitor the procedure using ultrasound (
17). Later, Chatterjee et al. used FemoStop in a different method that did not require ultrasound monitoring, and the patient was allowed to return to the ward. The success rate in this study was 74%, about 25% lower than the rate achieved in our research, and it was more time-consuming, with a mean compression time of 33 minutes (
18). The higher success rate of our device cannot be entirely attributed to its design, as factors such as the patient’s history, use of anticoagulants, and characteristics of the pseudoaneurysm may have also affected the success rate. These two studies are not comparable in all terms (
2,
19,
20).
The advantages of our compression device include the ability to maintain constant localized pressure with a ratchet mechanism and direct ultrasound monitoring. However, its non-portability may be considered a drawback.
Another important outcome was the lower mean pain score in the group of device-assisted compression compared to the conventional compression group, with the mean pain scores of 5 and 6, respectively. In addition to constant pressure, using a gel-containing pad may create a cooling effect, which alleviates the patient’s pain during the procedure. Since the variable of interest is "pain," even a single-unit reduction can be clinically significant. However, it is essential to note that VAS, similar to other unidimensional pain scales, is a subjective method, and pain perception may significantly vary among individuals. To the best of our knowledge, no other clinical trial has compared the pain scores of FAP treatment interventions as an outcome. Hence, no references exist to compare the findings of this study. Therefore, the clinical significance of lower pain intensities in our study remains unclear. What is clear is that moderate to high pain scores remain one of the drawbacks in ultrasound-guided compression treatment, and even though the invented device reduced the pain score, the mean pain score was still 5 out of 10. Therefore, as suggested in other studies for conventional compression, the repair with the compression device should also include the administration of analgesics and sedatives as needed (
5).
The patients in our study were also monitored for side effects, and no short-term side effect was observed in any patient. Likewise, other studies have reported no specific side effects associated with conventional compression but have mainly highlighted the limitations of ultrasound-guided compression, such as the length of the intervention and its labor intensiveness for sonographers (
21).
Another essential feature that may influence the success rate of the treatment is the pseudoaneurysm neck size. Some previous studies have shown that aneurysm neck length is the only relevant prognostic factor for time to thrombosis (
22), and the length < 10 mm is a statistically significant predictor of failure in ultrasound-guided compression repair (
5). In our study, the mean pseudoaneurysm neck length was about 3 mm shorter in the device-assisted treatment group than in the control group. Although the success rate in the device-assisted treatment group was higher in the current study, the difference between pseudoaneurysm features was not statistically significant and, therefore, not comparable between the two groups.
It should be noted that there are other therapies available for FAP, although not all of them are as accepted as compression repair, primarily because of their potential complications. For surgical treatments, complications occur in about 20% of cases and include severe bleeding, infection, and even mortality. Although thrombin injection repair has a success rate of almost 90%, it also causes potential serious complications such as peripheral embolization (
23). In addition, UGTI is not always successful on the first attempt and sometimes requires repeated injections or operations (
5,
24).
Overall, a 100% therapeutic success rate and 0% side effects are significant outcomes that justify the use of this device in the ultrasound-guided compression repair of pseudoaneurysms. Although using a device in this procedure is not a novel idea, our device can be easily installed and used at any center with the minimum equipment. Therefore, it can be claimed that the compression device offers a simple solution for safer and more successful repair of pseudoaneurysms by eliminating the main limitation of manual ultrasound-guided compression, that is, physician fatigue and its impact on the proper procedure (
2,
7,
25).
This study had several limitations. Although our sample size was similar to that of most other studies in this field, it is still considered small. We studied 22 patients, while many studies in the field are either case reports and case series (
25,
26) or observational and interventional studies with sample sizes of fewer than 50 patients (
2,
27,
28). Although some studies have sample sizes of more than 200 patients, they are relatively few in number (
19,
29). The small sample size of most studies in this field can be attributed to the low prevalence of pseudoaneurysms. Thus, our first suggestion for future research is to gather a larger sample over a prolonged period of time with a multicentric design to increase the generalizability of findings. Another limitation was achieving desirable intervention blindness for patients and therapists. Hence, the use of the device may have affected the recorded data, although we attempted to minimize this impact by enlisting the help of a radiologist outside the research team. The use of VAS as a subjective pain scale is another important limitation, which may be of less value for making comparisons among individuals at the one time point. Further studies incorporating stimulus-response function tests for each patient (
30) could provide more reliable comparisons of pain scores among individuals. Moreover, long-term follow-up exams could offer valuable insights into comparing pain scores and complications between groups.
In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that the proposed device is safe and may improve the success rate while reducing pain scores in ultrasound-guided compression repair as an alternative to manual compression treatment. To achieve better generalizability, it is necessary to conduct future studies with longer follow-ups, larger sample volumes, and comparisons with other conventional methods. Constructing and installing new equipment on the device, such as manometers, to apply controlled pressure is also suggested for future research.