Recanalization Rates after Acute Deep Vein Thrombosis: A Single-center Experience Using a Newly Proposed Vein Diameter Variation Index

Background: Duplex ultrasound scanning (DUS) is the method of choice for diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). However, only a few studies have performed prospective serial DUS after an acute episode of DVT to assess its evolution. This study aimed to report our experience using DUS combined with a thrombosis score (TS) and a newly proposed vein diameter variation index (VDVI) to evaluate the rate of resolution of DVT by assessing and quantifying the early stages of vein recanalization in proximal vein segments within 6 months after an episode of acute lower extremity DVT.Methods: Twelve patients with first episode of acute lower extremity DVT confirmed by DUS as occurring in <= 10 days after the onset of venous thrombosis symptoms were followed up prospectively for 6 months. TS and VDVI were calculated at 1, 3, and 6 months to assess vein recanalization. Intra-thrombus arteriovenous fistula formation was also investigated and related to the recanalization process.Results: Seven (58%) women were included, with a total cohort median age of 53.5 +/- 19 years. The left lower extremity was affected in 7 (58%) patients. DVT was diagnosed in 55 proximal vein segments. All patients had proximal DVT, with involvement of the external iliac, femoral, and popliteal veins. After 6 months, there was a significant decrease in TS and increase in VDVI (P < 0.001) in all proximal vein segments assessed, indicating thrombus regression. The more distal the DVT was, the faster was the VDVI increase, with most popliteal veins being recanalized at 3 months (P < 0.001). Intra-thrombus arteriovenous fistula was identified in 50% of patients at 1 month while on anticoagulation.Conclusions: The combined use of two different DUS-based assessment tools, TS and the proposed VDVI, provided an effective method to prospectively assess vein recanalization rates after an episode of acute lower extremity DVT in this series of patients and may allow a correct evaluation of DVT and its resolution or progression.

Effects of different mydriatics on intraocular pressure, pupil diameter, and ruminal and intestinal motility in healthy sheep

Objective To determine the effects of the administration of subconjunctival 1% atropine (SA), topical 1% atropine (A), 0.5% tropicamide (T), 1% homatropine (H), 10% phenylephrine (P), and 2% ibopamine (I) on intraocular pressure (IOP), pupil diameter (PD), ruminal motility (RM) and intestinal motility (IM) in sheep.Animal studied Ten spayed ewes of Santa Ines breed.Procedures Six experiments were performed separately at 1-week intervals. One eye was randomly selected and received one drop of A, T, H, P, I, or subconjunctival injection of atropine at 8 a. m. On the following days, IOP and PD were evaluated every 8 h until the pupil returned to its normal diameter. Ruminal motility and intestinal motility were evaluated only within the first 13 h.Results The IOP did not change significantly in the treated eyes compared with the control eyes and baseline at any time point (P > 0.05). A longer-lasting pupil dilation was observed after the administration of A (96 h), SA (79 h), H (24 h), and T (24 h). Within the first 30 min after treatment, RM and IM decreased, by 78% and 82% (H), 76% and 86% (SA), 46% and 58% (A), and 62% and 70% (T) (P < 0.001), respectively, with a tendency to return to baseline values following 13 h of drug administration. Both 10% phenylephrine and 2% ibopamine did not have any effect on the parameters evaluated (P > 0.05).Conclusions Topical and subconjunctival 1% atropine, 0.5% tropicamide, and 1% homatropine significantly reduced RM and IM, and induced pupil dilation but did not change IOP in eyes of healthy sheep. The sympathomimetics phenylephrine (10%) and ibopamine (2%) did not change the parameters evaluated.

Sedoanalgesia with midazolam and fentanyl citrate controls probe pain during prostate biopsy by transrectal ultrasound

To assess the pain intensity of patients administered midazolam and fentanyl citrate before undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. This was a study in patients with different indications for prostate biopsy in whom 5 mg of midazolam and 50 µg of fentanyl citrate was administered intravenously 3 minutes before the procedure. After biopsy, pain was assessed by use of a visual analogue scale (VAS) in three stages: VAS 1, during probe introduction; VAS 2, during needle penetration into prostate tissue; and VAS 3, in the weeks following the exam. Pain intensity at these different times was tested with stratification by age, race, education, prostate volume, rebiopsy, and anxiety before biopsy. Pain was ranked according to the following scores: 0 (no pain), 1-3 (mild pain), 4-7 (moderate pain), and 8-10 (severe pain). Statistical analysis was performed by using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon two-tailed tests with a significance of 5%. Pain intensity was not influenced by any risk factors. The mean VAS 1 score was 1.95±1.98, the mean VAS 2 score was 2.73±2.55, and the mean VAS 3 score was 0.3±0.9, showing greater pain at the time of needle penetration than in other situations (VAS 2>VAS 1>VAS 3, p=0.0013, p=0.0001, respectively). Seventy-five percent of patients reported a VAS pain scale of less than 3.1 or mild pain. Intravenous sedation and analgesia with midazolam and fentanyl citrate is a good method for reducing pain caused by prostate biopsy, even during probe insertion.