Search

Endovascular management of abdominal wall hematomas (AWHs) is now the primary treatment option in hemodynamically stable patients, and it is often preferred to surgical interventions. The purpose of this multicentric study was to assess the safety, technical, and clinical success of percutaneous transarterial embolization (PTAE) of spontaneous AWHs to evaluate the efficacy of blind or empiric embolization compared to targeted embolization and to compare the outcome of the endovascular treatment approach in patients affected by COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. We retrospectively enrolled 112 patients with spontaneous AWHs who underwent PTAE, focusing on signs of bleeding at pre-procedural CTA and DSA. Patients were separated into two groups depending on whether a blind or targeted embolization approach was used. We also divided patients into COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 groups. The mean age of the study population was 68.6 ± 15.8 years. CTA and DSA revealed signs of active bleeding in 99 and 88 patients, respectively. In 21 patients, blind embolization was performed. The overall technical success rate was 99%. Clinical success was obtained in 96 patients (86%), while 16 (14%) re-bled within 96 h. One patient reported a major peri-procedural complication. The comparison between blind and targeted embolization approaches showed no statistically significant differences in the characteristics of groups and technical and clinical success rates. No significant differences were found in the procedural outcome between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 groups. Our study confirmed that PTAE is effective for treating spontaneous AWHs, even in COVID-19 patients. It suggests that the efficacy and safety of blind embolization are comparable to targeted embolization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Background: Spontaneous retroperitoneal hematomas are a relatively common occurrence in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 related pneumonia, and endovascular treatment of trans-arterial embolization (TAE) may be a life-saving procedure after failure of medical and supportive therapy. The aim of our study was to evaluate spontaneous retroperitoneal hematomas in the COVID-19 era, focusing on their imaging features at CTA and DSA and on the safety, as well as technical and clinical success, of TAE, comparing patients affected by COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. (2) Materials and Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 24 patients with spontaneous retroperitoneal hematoma who underwent TAE; of these, 10 were hospitalized for COVID-19-related pneumonia, while the other 14 were without COVID-19 infection. We evaluated the demographic data, hemoglobin values before and after the procedure, preprocedural aPTT, preprocedural INR, diagnostic and interventional imaging findings, procedural outcome (technical success) and survival periprocedural (clinical success), and major and minor complications. (3) Results: The mean age of the study population was 72.7 ± 11.2 years. CTA revealed signs of active bleeding in 20 patients (83%). DSA showed signs of active bleeding in 20 patients (83%). In four patients (17%), blind embolization was performed. The overall technical success rate was 100%. Clinical success was achieved in 17 patients (71%), while seven patients (29%) rebled within 96 h, and all of them were retreated. No major periprocedural complication was reported. The comparison between the two groups did not show statistically significant differences for gender, mean age, mean pre- and postprocedural hemoglobin, aPTT and INR, mean hematoma volume (cm3), or mean delay between CT and DSA. Active bleeding at CTA was detected in 90% of COVID-19 patients and 79% of non-COVID-19 patients (p = 0.61). At DSA, active bleeding was assessed in eight out of 10 (80%) patients in the COVID-19 group and 12 out of 14 (86%) patients in the non-COVID-19 group (p = 1). Technical success was obtained in 100% of patients in both groups. Clinical success rates were 70% for COVID-19 group and 71% for the non-COVID-19 group. We found no statistical significance between the clinical success rates of retroperitoneal spontaneous hematoma embolization in patients with or without SARS-CoV-2 infection. (4) Conclusions: We suggest that, similar to what has been reported in other studies in non-COVID-19 patients, TAE should be considered an important safe, effective, and potentially life-saving option for the management and the treatment of patients affected by COVID-19 who present with spontaneous retroperitoneal hematoma and who could not benefit from conservative treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endovascular treatment of abdominal wall hematomas (AWHs) has been increasingly used when conservative treatments were not sufficiently effective, and it is often preferred to surgical interventions. The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and technical and clinical success of percutaneous transarterial treatment of AWH and to evaluate the efficacy of blind embolization compared to targeted embolization. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 43 patients (23 men and 20 females) with spontaneous AWH who underwent digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and embolization, focusing on the presence of signs of bleeding at pre-procedural CT-Angiography (CTA) and at DSA. Furthermore, we divided patients into two groups depending on blind or targeted embolization approaches. Results: The mean age of the study population was 71 ± 12 years. CTA revealed signs of active bleeding in 31 patients (72%). DSA showed signs of active bleeding in 34 patients (79%). In nine patients (21%), blind embolization was performed. The overall technical success rate was 100%. Clinical success was achieved in 33 patients (77%), while 10 patients (23%) rebled within 96 h, and all of them were re-treated. No major peri-procedural complication was reported. The comparison between blind and targeted embolization showed no statistically significant differences for characteristics of groups and for clinical success rates (78% and 77%, respectively, −p = 0.71). The technical success was 100% in both groups. Conclusions: Our study confirms that transarterial embolization is a safe and effective option for the treatment of spontaneous AWHs, and it suggests that the efficacy and safety of blind embolization is comparable to non-blind. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Male varicocele and pelvic congestion syndrome (PCS) are common pathologies with high predominance in young patients, having a high impact on the quality of life and infertility. Lately, the use of different endovascular embolization techniques, with various embolizing agents, shows good technical results and clinical outcomes. With the aim of presenting the "state of the art" of endovascular techniques for the treatment of male varicocele and PCS, and to discuss the performance of the different embolic agents proposed, we conducted an extensive analysis of the relevant literature and we reported and discussed the results of original studies and previous meta-analyses, providing an updated guide on this topic to clinicians and interventional radiologists. We have also underlined the technical aspects for the benefit of those who approach this type of interventional treatment. Our review suggests promising results in both the endovascular embolic treatment of male varicocele and PCS; for varicocele, a success rate of between 70% and 100% and a recurrence rate of up to 16% is reported, while for PCS it has been found that technical success is achieved in almost all cases of endovascular treatment, with a highly variable recurrence rate based on reports. Complications are overall rather rare and are represented by periprocedural pain, migration of embolic media and vascular perforations: severe adverse events have been reported very rarely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]