Prospective, intraindividual comparison of MRI versus MDCT for endoleak detection after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

This study compares MRI and MDCT for endoleak detection after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR). Forty-three patients with previous EVAR underwent both MRI (2D T1-FFE unenhanced and contrast-enhanced; 3D triphasic contrast-enhanced) and 16-slice MDCT (unenhanced and biphasic contrast-enhanced) within 1 week of each other for endoleak detection. MRI was performed by using a high-relaxivity contrast medium (gadobenate dimeglumine, MultiHance). Two blinded, independent observers evaluated MRI and MDCT separately. Consensus reading of MRI and MDCT studies was defined as reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated and Cohen's k statistics were used to estimate agreement between readers. Twenty endoleaks were detected in 18 patients at consensus reading (12 type II and 8 indeterminate endoleaks). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for endoleak detection were 100%, 92%, and 96%, respectively, for reader 1 (95%, 81%, 87% for reader 2) for MRI and 55%, 100%, and 80% for reader 1 (60%, 100%, 82% for reader 2) for MDCT. Interobserver agreement was excellent for MDCT (k = 0.96) and good for MRI (k = 0.81). MRI with the use of a high-relaxivity contrast agent is significantly superior in the detection of endoleaks after EVAR compared with MDCT. MRI may therefore become the preferred technique for patient follow-up after EVAR.

Outcome and quality of life in patients treated for abdominal aortic aneurysms: a single center experience

BACKGROUND: Durability of protection and long-term quality of life (QoL) are critical outcome parameters of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. The aim of the present study was to compare results of endovascular and open aneurysm repair (EVAR and OR) with adjusted standard populations, including stratification for urgency of presentation. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 401 consecutive patients presenting with AAA between January 1998 and December 2002. Cross-sectional follow up was 58 +/- 29 months. Patients were grouped into three cohorts: elective EVAR (n = 68), elective OR (n = 244), and emergency OR (including symptomatic and ruptured AAA, n = 89). Endpoints were perioperative (i.e., 30 days or in-hospital) and late mortality rates, as well as long-term QoL as assessed by the Short Form health survey questionnaire (SF-36). RESULTS: Mean age was lower in the elective OR cohort (66 +/- 10 years) than in the EVAR cohort (72 +/- 7 years; p < .05). Perioperative mortality rates were 4.4%, 0.4%, and 10.1%, for the EVAR, elective OR, and emergency OR cohorts, respectively (p < .05). Corresponding cumulative survival rates after 4 years were 67%, 89%, and 69%, respectively. Long-term QoL SF-36 scores were in all cohorts similar to age- and gender-adjusted standard populations, which score between 85 and 115: 99.6 +/- 35.8 (EVAR), 101.3 +/- 32.4 (elective OR), and 100.4 +/- 36.5 (emergency OR). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term QoL is not permanently impaired after AAA repair, but returns in long-term survivors to what would be expected in a standard population. In this respect, differences were found neither between EVAR and OR, nor between elective and emergency repair. Perioperative mortality rates were highest in patients undergoing emergency OR. The outlook for such patients after the perioperative period, however, was similar to that for patients undergoing elective repair.

Systemic prokinetic pharmacologic treatment for postoperative adynamic ileus following abdominal surgery in adults

BACKGROUND: Postoperative adynamic bowel atony interferes with recovery following abdominal surgery. Prokinetic pharmacologic drugs are widely used to accelerate postoperative recovery. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic acting prokinetic drugs to treat postoperative adynamic ileus in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by computerised searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group specialised register. The reference lists of included trials and review articles were tracked and authors contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled parallel-group trials (RCT) comparing the effect of systemically acting prokinetic drugs against placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Trial authors were contacted for additional information if needed. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria contributing a total of 4615 participants. Most trials enrolled a small number of patients and showed moderate to poor (reporting of) methodological quality, in particular regarding allocation concealment and intention-to-treat analysis. Fifteen systemic acting prokinetic drugs were investigated and ten comparisons could be summarized. Six RCTs support the effect of Alvimopan, a novel peripheral mu receptor antagonist. However, the trials do not meet reporting guidelines and the drug is still in an investigational stage. Erythromycin showed homogenous and consistent absence of effect across all included trials and outcomes. The evidence is insufficient to recommend the use of cholecystokinin-like drugs, cisapride, dopamine-antagonists, propranolol or vasopressin. Effects are either inconsistent across outcomes, or trials are too small and often of poor methodological quality. Cisapride has been withdrawn from the market due to adverse cardiac events in many countries. Intravenous lidocaine and neostigmine might show a potential effect, but more evidence on clinically relevant outcomes is needed. Heterogeneity among included trials was seen in 10 comparisons. No major adverse drug effects were evident. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Alvimopan may prove to be beneficial but proper judgement needs adherence to reporting standards. Further trials are needed on intravenous lidocaine and neostigmine. The remaining drugs can not be recommended due to lack of evidence or absence of effect.

Decision making in patients with acute abdominal pain at a university and at a rural hospital: Does the value of abdominal sonography differ?

Introduction and objectives Abdominal sonography is regarded as a quick and effective diagnostic tool for acute abdominal pain in emergency medicine. However, final diagnosis is usually based on a combination of various clinical examinations and radiography. The role of sonography in the decision making process at a hospital with advanced imaging capabilities versus a hospital with limited imaging capabilities but more experienced clinicians is unclear. The aim of this pilot study was to assess the relative importance of sonography and its influence on the clinical management of acute abdominal pain, at two Swiss hospitals, a university hospital (UH) and a rural hospital (RH). Methods 161 patients were prospectively examined clinically. Blood tests and sonography were performed in all patients. Patients younger than 18 years and patients with trauma were excluded. In both hospitals, the diagnosis before and after ultrasonography was registered in a protocol. Certainty of the diagnosis was expressed on a scale from 0% to 100%. The decision processes used to manage patients before and after they underwent sonography were compared. The diagnosis at discharge was compared to the diagnosis 2 – 6 weeks thereafter. Results Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of sonography were high: 94%, 88% and 91%, respectively. At the UH, management after sonography changed in only 14% of cases, compared to 27% at the RH. Additional tests were more frequently added at the UH (30%) than at the RH (18%), but had no influence on the decision making process-whether to operate or not. At the UH, the diagnosis was missed in one (1%) patient, but in three (5%) patients at the RH. No significant difference was found between the two hospitals in frequency of management changes due to sonography or in the correctness of the diagnosis. Conclusion Knowing that sonography has high sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in the diagnosis of acute abdominal pain, one would assume it would be an important diagnostic tool, particularly at the RH, where tests/imaging studies are rare. However, our pilot study indicates that sonography provides important diagnostic information in only a minority of patients with acute abdominal pain. Sonography was more important at the rural hospital than at the university hospital. Further costly examinations are generally ordered for verification, but these additional tests change the final treatment plan in very few patients.

Intra-abdominal pressure development after different temporary abdominal closure techniques in a porcine model

BACKGROUND: Decompressive laparotomy followed by temporary abdominal closure (TAC) is an established prophylaxis and treatment for abdominal compartment syndrome. The herein presented study aimed at the comparison of volume reserve capacity and development of intra-abdominal hypertension after forced primary abdominal closure and different TAC techniques in a porcine model. METHODS: Eight anesthesized and mechanically ventilated domestic pigs underwent a standardized midline laparotomy. A bag was placed into the abdominal cavity. Before abdominal closure, the bag was prefilled with 3,000 mL water to simulate increased intra-abdominal volume. The intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) was then increased in 2 mm Hg steps up to 30 mm Hg by adding volume (volume reserve capacity) to the intra-abdominal bag. Volume reserve capacity with the corresponding IAP were analyzed and compared for primary abdominal closure, bag silo closure, a zipper system, and vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) with different negative pressures (-50, -100, and -150 mm Hg). Hemodynamic and pulmonary parameters were monitored throughout the experiment. RESULTS: Volume reserve capacity was the highest for bag silo closure followed by the zipper system and VAC with primary abdominal closure providing the least volume reserve capacity in the whole IAP range. Of interest, VAC -50 mm Hg resulted in a lower volume reserve capacity when compared with VAC -100 and -150 mm Hg. Pulmonary and hemodynamic parameters demonstrated no significant differences between primary abdominal closure and the evaluated TAC techniques at all IAP levels. CONCLUSIONS: The present experimental in vivo study indicates that bag silo closure and zipper systems may be favorable TAC techniques after decompressive laparotomy. In contrast, the VAC techniques resulted in lower volume reserve capacity and therefore may bear an increased risk for recurrent intra-abdominal hypertension in the initial phase after decompressive laparotomy.

Risk of complications after abdominal paracentesis in cirrhotic patients: a prospective study

BACKGROUND ; AIMS: Complications and technical problems of paracentesis in cirrhotic patients are infrequent. However, the severity and the incidence of these events and their risk factors have not been assessed prospectively. METHODS: Cirrhotic patients (n = 171) undergoing paracentesis were included. Of the 515 paracenteses, 8.8% were diagnostic, and 91.2% were therapeutic. Technical features, demographic data, and adverse events during a period of 72 hours after the procedure were examined. RESULTS: Major complications occurred in 1.6% of procedures and included 5 bleedings and 3 infections, resulting in death in 2 cases. Major complications were associated with therapeutic but not diagnostic procedures and tended to be more prevalent in patients with low platelet count (<50 10(9)/L), Child-Pugh stage C, and in alcoholic cirrhosis patients. Technical problems occurred in 5.6%. The most frequent complication was a leak of ascites at the puncture site (5.0%), and in 89.5% there were no complications. CONCLUSIONS: The safety of paracentesis in cirrhotic patients might be decreased if risk factors, which depend on the characteristics of the patient and of the procedure itself, are present.

Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: only a mechanical solution for a biological problem?

Endovascular aneurysm repair has matured significantly over the last 20 years and is becoming increasingly popular as a minimally invasive treatment option for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Long-term durability of this fascinating treatment, however, is in doubt as continuing aneurysmal degeneration of the aortoiliac graft attachment zones is clearly associated with late adverse sequelae. In recent years, our growing understanding of the physiopathology of AAA formation has facilitated scrutiny of various potential drug treatment concepts. In this article we review the mechanical and biological challenges associated with endovascular treatment of infrarenal AAAs and discuss potential approaches to ongoing aneurysmal degeneration, which hampers long-term outcomes of this minimally invasive therapy.

[Abdominal aortic aneurysm]

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) confer a substantial healthcare burden in the Western world. Surgical or endovascular therapy is indicated in patients with a maximum diameter exceeding 5.5 cm. Patients with smaller AAA must undergo a specific ultrasound surveillance program aimed at avoiding exposure to an increased risk of rupture once their AAA exceeds the threshold for active treatment. Based on improved understanding of the pathophysiology of AAA, recent years provided initial insight into potential medical treatment options. The presence of AAA is currently regarded a coronary artery disease risk equivalent. ACE inhibitors, statins and JNK-inhibitors were shown to have the potential to slow down progression. Since cigarette smoking is the main risk factor for both the development and progression of AAA, smoking cessation remains a key goal. Further prospective studies will assess the clinical efficacy of various promising drug treatment approaches aimed at slowing disease progression of small AAA and after endovascular therapy.

Clinical experience with the use of bivalirudin in a large population undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the use of bivalirudin, a direct thrombin antagonist, compared with unfractionated heparin in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between March 1994 and September 2007, 740 consecutive patients (mean age, 75.7 y +/- 7.7; 69 women) underwent elective EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. Bivalirudin was used in 98 of these 740 (13.2%) and unfractioned heparin was used in the other 642 (86.8%). Complications were classified according to the Society of Vascular Surgery/International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery criteria. Major bleeding was defined as clinically overt blood loss resulting in a decrease of hemoglobin of more than 3 g/dL, any decrease in hemoglobin of more than 4 g/dL, transfusion of 2 U or more of red blood cells, or intracranial or retroperitoneal hemorrhage. RESULTS: Grade 1 major complications were observed in 161 of 642 patients (25.2%) in the heparin group and 12 of 98 patients (12.2%) in the bivalirudin group (P = .0046), whereas the incidences of grade 3 major complications were not significantly different between groups (P = .57). The rate of total complications was higher in the heparin group than in the bivalirudin group (247 of 642 [38.5%] vs 21 of 98 [21.4%]; P = .001). Major bleeding occurred in 10 of 98 patients (10.2%) receiving bivalirudin and in 91 of 642 patients (14.2%) receiving heparin (P = .34). One of 21 major complications (4.76%) in the bivalirudin group and 12 of 247 major complications (4.86%) in the heparin group were attributable to thrombosis (P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Bivalirudin is a safe and feasible alternative to unfractionated heparin in patients undergoing EVAR.