Back to research feed

Cardiovascular and interventional radiology

September 23, 2026 · via Europe PMC

CIRSE Standards of Practice for the Use of Non-sclerosant Liquid Embolic Agents in IR Practice.

Giurazza F, Ierardi AM, Urbano J, Bent C, Roccatagliata P, Loffroy R.

Journal ArticleAbstract only — full text under license

AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only

CIRSE Standards of Practice describe cyanoacrylates and polymer liquid embolics as safe and effective across many indications, including in coagulopathic patients, but with a steeper learning curve requiring thorough training.

What was studied

Consensus standards of practice document from a CIRSE writing group of five experts based on a pragmatic literature review (2009-2025) of non-sclerosant liquid embolic agents.

Key findings

  • Non-sclerosant liquid embolics include cyanoacrylates and polymers
  • Effective embolization even with impaired coagulation
  • Understanding chemical properties guides preparation and application
  • Steeper learning curve than mechanical or particulate agents

Clinical relevance

This provides consensus guidance for the use of liquid embolics and emphasizes training; recommendations are expert consensus rather than high-level comparative evidence.

Who should care

Interventional Radiology

Limitations

Expert consensus based on a pragmatic, non-systematic literature search.

Liquid embolics are powerful tools that work even in coagulopathy, but they demand proper training.

This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.

Abstract

Background

Non-sclerosant liquid embolic agents are safe and effective embolics that have been used in interventional radiology for more than 50 years, in both emergency and elective scenarios.

Purpose

This document aims to review the chemical principles and technical considerations involved, to make recommendations regarding clinical indications for the use of non-sclerosant liquid embolic agents, and to review the literature regarding outcomes and complications. CIRSE Standards of Practice documents are not intended to impose a standard of clinical patient care, but to recommend a reasonable approach to, and best practices for, procedural performance, in this instance the use of non-sclerosant liquid embolic agents.

Methods

The writing group was established by the CIRSE Standards of Practice Committee and consisted of five clinicians with internationally recognised expertise in non-sclerosant liquid embolic agents and a research assistant (P.R.). The writing group reviewed the existing literature on non-sclerosant liquid embolic agents, performing a pragmatic evidence search using PUBMED and EMBASE focussing on English-language publications, preferably from 2009 up to December 2025, and including more than ten patients. Where clear gaps were evident, older literature was searched and select references included. The final recommendations were formulated through consensus.

Results

Non-sclerosant liquid embolic agents are represented by cyanoacrylates and polymers which are safe and effective agents that can be used in a wide range of clinical scenarios, resulting in effective embolization even in patients with impaired coagulation function. Knowing their chemical properties provides understanding of their correct preparation, technical application and clinical indication. Compared to mechanical and particulate agents, non-sclerosant liquid embolic agents present a steeper learning curve, and thus, thorough training in their use is essential.

DOI

10.1007/s00270-026-04610-4

PMID

42778641

Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.

Want more like this?

Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.

Back to the research feed

Create a free account · Sign in