Search

OBJECTIVES: Prostate artery embolisation (PAE) is a new minimally invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The purpose of this study was to review the efficacy and safety of PAE in the treatment of BPH with LUTS.METHODS: A systematic review performed according to the PRISMA guidelines with a pre-specified search strategy for PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase databases protocol (PROSPERO ID: CRD42017059196). Trials studying the efficacy of prostate artery embolisation to treat LUTS with more than ten participants and follow-up longer than 6 months were included by two independent authors. Outcomes investigated were International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), prostate volume (PV), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), peak void flow (Qmax), post-void residual (PVR) and complications. To summarise mean change from baseline, a meta-analysis was done using the random-effects model.RESULTS: The search returned 210 references, of which 13 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing 1,254 patients. Patients in the included studies with data available for meta-analysis had moderate to severe LUTS and a mean IPSS of 23.5. Statistically significant (p value < 0.05) improvements of all investigated outcomes were seen at 12-month follow-up. Major complications were reported in 0.3% of the cases.CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that PAE can reduce moderate to severe LUTS in men with BPH with a low risk of complications.KEY POINTS: • Prostate artery embolisation (PAE) improved International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) by 67%. • Major complications after PAE are very rare. • Use of cone-beam CT may reduce risk of non-target embolisation.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate artery embolization (PAE) is recognized as a treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. LUTS and urinary retention are common in men with prostate cancer (PCa). The purpose of this study was to estimate the efficacy and safety of palliative PAE on LUTS or urinary retention in men with advanced PCa.MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, single-center trial was conducted from March 2017 to November 2018. The trial protocol was registered online (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03104907). Only men with advanced PCa suffering from LUTS or urinary retention were included. The primary outcome was the ability to void without a catheter and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) in non-catheter-dependent patients. The paired t test was used to analyze changes from baseline with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.RESULTS: Seventeen patients were assessed for eligibility, and 15 patients with a mean age of 73.8 years were enrolled. Four men did not complete follow-up: cancer-related death (n = 2), lost to follow-up (n = 1), and unsuccessful embolization due to severe atherosclerosis (n = 1). Bilateral embolization was achieved in ten cases, and urinary retention resolved in one of six patients. LUTS improved in the remaining (n = 5) patients by a mean 12.2-point reduction in IPSS (95% CI - 23.53; - 0.87). According to the CIRSE classification, two grade 1 and two grade 3 complications occurred.CONCLUSION: In this study, palliative PAE was safe and efficient for treatment for LUTS associated with PCa.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4, Case Series. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03104907.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: To develop a procedure specific global rating scale for assessment of operator competence in endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). METHODS: A Delphi approach was used to achieve expert consensus. A panel of 32 international experts (median 300 EVAR procedures, range 200-3000) from vascular surgery (n = 21) and radiology (n = 11) was established. The first Delphi round was based on a review of endovascular skills assessment papers, stent graft instructions for use, and structured interviews. It led to a primary pool of 83 items that were formulated as global rating scale items with tentative anchors. Iterative Delphi rounds were executed. The panellists rated the importance of each item on a 5 point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as 80% of the panel rating an item 4 or 5 in the primary round and 90% in subsequent rounds. Consensus on the final assessment tool was defined as Cronbach's alpha > .8 after a minimum of three rounds. RESULTS: Thirty-two of 35 invited experts participated. Three rounds of surveys were completed with a completion rate of 100% in the first two rounds and 91% in round three. The 83 primary assessment items were supplemented with five items suggested by the panel and reduced to seven pivotal assessment items that reached consensus, Cronbach's alpha = 0.82. The seven item rating scale covers key elements of competence in EVAR stent placement and deployment. Each item has well defined grades with explicit anchors at unacceptable, acceptable, and superior performance on a 5 point Likert scale. CONCLUSION: The Delphi methodology allowed for international consensus on a new procedure specific global rating scale for assessment of competence in EVAR. The resulting scale, EndoVascular Aortic Repair Assessment of Technical Expertise (EVARATE), represents key elements in the procedure. EVARATE constitutes an assessment tool for providing structured feedback to endovascular operators in training., Collaborators (32)Aho P, Back M, Bicknell C, Björses K, Brunkwall J, Dake M, Dias N, Dorenberg E, Duvnjak S, Falkenberg M, Formgren J, Holst J, Kristmundsson T, Langfeldt S, Lindgren H, Mafi H, Malina M, Mani K, Modarai B, Morgan R, Nyman N, Pärsson H, Rasmussen J, Resch T, Shames M, Van Den Berg JC, Van Herzeele I, Verhagen H, Verhoeven E, Venermo M, Vermassen F, Wanhainen A.Kevin Mani och Anders Wanhainen är med som collaborators, de arbetar på Institutionen för kirurgiska vetenskapet på Uppsala universitet, inom kärlkirurgi

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is associated with inflammatory lesions in the brain and spinal cord. The detection of such inflammatory lesions using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is important in the consideration of the diagnosis and differential diagnoses of MS, as well as in the monitoring of disease activity and predicting treatment efficacy. Although there is strong evidence supporting the use of MRI for both the diagnosis and monitoring of disease activity, there is a lack of evidence regarding which MRI protocols to use, the frequency of examinations, and in what clinical situations to consider MRI examination. A national workshop to discuss these issues was held in Stockholm, Sweden, in August 2015, which resulted in a Swedish consensus statement regarding the use of MRI in the care of individuals with MS. The aim of this consensus statement is to provide practical advice for the use of MRI in this setting. The recommendations are based on a review of relevant literature and the clinical experience of workshop attendees. It is our hope that these recommendations will benefit individuals with MS and guide healthcare professionals responsible for their care.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: To develop a procedure specific global rating scale for assessment of operator competence in endovascular aortic repair (EVAR).METHODS: A Delphi approach was used to achieve expert consensus. A panel of 32 international experts (median 300 EVAR procedures, range 200-3000) from vascular surgery (n = 21) and radiology (n = 11) was established. The first Delphi round was based on a review of endovascular skills assessment papers, stent graft instructions for use, and structured interviews. It led to a primary pool of 83 items that were formulated as global rating scale items with tentative anchors. Iterative Delphi rounds were executed. The panellists rated the importance of each item on a 5 point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as 80% of the panel rating an item 4 or 5 in the primary round and 90% in subsequent rounds. Consensus on the final assessment tool was defined as Cronbach's alpha > .8 after a minimum of three rounds.RESULTS: Thirty-two of 35 invited experts participated. Three rounds of surveys were completed with a completion rate of 100% in the first two rounds and 91% in round three. The 83 primary assessment items were supplemented with five items suggested by the panel and reduced to seven pivotal assessment items that reached consensus, Cronbach's alpha = 0.82. The seven item rating scale covers key elements of competence in EVAR stent placement and deployment. Each item has well defined grades with explicit anchors at unacceptable, acceptable, and superior performance on a 5 point Likert scale.CONCLUSION: The Delphi methodology allowed for international consensus on a new procedure specific global rating scale for assessment of competence in EVAR. The resulting scale, EndoVascular Aortic Repair Assessment of Technical Expertise (EVARATE), represents key elements in the procedure. EVARATE constitutes an assessment tool for providing structured feedback to endovascular operators in training.

OBJECTIVES: To study the effect of red blood cell (RBC) storage duration on long-term mortality in patients undergoing cardiac intervention.BACKGROUND: RBCs undergo numerous structural and functional changes during storage. Observational studies have assessed the association between RBC storage duration and patient outcomes with conflicting results.METHODS: Between January 2006 and December 2014, 82 408 patients underwent coronary angiography. Of these, 1856 patients received one to four RBC units within 30 days after this procedure. Patients were allocated according to length of RBC storage duration: short-term (≤11 days), intermediate (IM)-term (12-23 days) and long-term (≥24 days). The study endpoints were 30-day and long-term all-cause mortality.RESULTS: A total of 4168 RBC units were given to 1856 patients. The mean RBC storage duration was 8.5 ± 2.1, 17.7 ± 3.4 and 29.9 ± 3.4 days in the short-term, IM-term and long-term storage groups, respectively. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the groups. The long-term storage group received significantly more units (2.4 ± 1.0 units) as compared to the short-term (2.0 ± 1.0 units; P < 0.001) and IM-term storage group (2.2 ± 1.0 units; P < 0.01). In the survival analysis, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the groups (log-rank: 0.509 for 30-days mortality; 0.493 for 5-year mortality). Additional stratified analysis demonstrated no association between RBC storage duration and long-term mortality.CONCLUSION: This study did not find an association between RBC storage duration and 30-days or long-term mortality in patients undergoing cardiac intervention.

Objectives Rupture risk in abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is assessed using AAA diameter; yet 10% of ruptures occur in a small aneurysm. This underlines the inadequacy of diameter as a standalone parameter. In this prospective follow-up study, ultrasound determined aneurysm diameter was compared with aneurysm volume determined by three dimensional ultrasound (3D-US) in a group of 179 AAAs. Design This was a prospective cohort study with repeated diameter and volume measurements by 3D-US. Material and methods In total, 179 patients with small infrarenal AAAs (diameter 30–55 mm) were enrolled consecutively. At enrolment and at 12 month follow-up, maximum diameter, using dual plane technique, and three dimensional volume were measured. Based on a previous accuracy study, significant change in diameter and volume were defined as an increase exceeding the known range of variability (ROV) of each US technique; ±3.7 mm and ±8.8 mL, respectively. Post-hoc Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed to estimate time to conversion to treatment after the conclusion of the follow-up period between two groups. Results In total, 125 patients (70%) had an unchanged diameter during follow-up. In this group, 50 patients (40%) had an increasing aortic volume. Forty-five (83%) of the 54 patients with an increasing aortic diameter showed a corresponding volume increase. During a median follow-up of 367 days (364–380 days), a mean increase in diameter of 2.7 mm (±2.6 mm) and a mean increase in volume of 11.6 mL (±9.9 mL) were recorded. In post-hoc analysis, it was found that more AAAs with a stable diameter and a growing volume than AAAs with a stable diameter and volume were undergoing aortic repair during follow-up, based on the maximum diameter. Conclusion In this cohort of small AAAs, 40% of patients with a stable diameter had an increasing volume at 12 month follow-up. From this perspective, 3D-US could have a future supplemental role in AAA surveillance programmes.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Surveillance after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is mandatory and computed tomography angiography (CTA) is considered the standard imaging modality, although patients are exposed to ionizing radiation and nephrotoxic contrast medium. The primary aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic efficacy of duplex ultrasound (DUS) and contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) using CTA as the gold standard. The secondary aim was to determine the clinical consequences of endoleaks missed by DUS and CEUS, or CTA.METHODS: All patients with EVAR for an aorto-iliac aneurysm between 1 August 2011 and 31 October 2014 were prospectively and consecutively enrolled. CEUS was added to the existing surveillance protocol, which included DUS, plain abdominal X-ray, and CTA at 3 and 12 months after stent implantation.RESULTS: In 278 patients, endoleaks were detected in 68, 69, and 46 cases by CTA, CEUS, and DUS, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of DUS and CEUS were 46% and 93%, and 85% and 95%, respectively. CEUS and CTA were diagnostically equivalent, as opposed to DUS and CTA (p = .002). Endoleaks detected by CTA led to re-intervention in 11 (4%) patients. These endoleaks were also detected by CEUS; however, three out of 11 patients were missed by DUS and underwent re-intervention: limb extension, re-cuff, and attempt to coil lumbar leaks. Endoleaks missed by CEUS or CTA were type II endoleaks without sac expansion.CONCLUSION: In surveillance programs after EVAR a diagnostic CEUS examination may replace CTA.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To evaluate the amputation-free survival after below the knee percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in a consecutive group of patients with critical ischemia of the lower extremity.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 70 consecutive patients with critical ischemia were treated with below the knee percutaneous transluminal angioplasty at the vascular center at Rigshospitalet with the purpose of limb salvage. All patients were deemed unfit for major surgery due to anatomical limitations or severe co-morbidity, and no prior attempts of revascularization were performed. Follow-up clinical examinations were performed within 6 weeks and after 1 year. All medical records were crosschecked with the national vascular registry ensuring a valid 1-year status in 97% of the patients.RESULTS: A total of 15 major amputations were performed during follow-up, with 11 amputations performed within the first year. Complications after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty were rare. Cumulative mortality after 1 and 2 years was 22% and 34%, respectively. Amputation-free survival at 1 and 2 years of follow-up was 68% and 58%, respectively. There were no association between known risk factors such as diabetes, ischemic ulcers, cardiac disease, history of smoking, major amputation, or overall amputation.CONCLUSION: Below the knee percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in patients with end-stage peripheral arterial disease and critical limb ischemia is a safe procedure in relieving critical ischemia, reducing the short-term rate of a major amputation as opposed to best medical treatment alone.

OBJECTIVE: Non-invasive and reproducible size measurements that correlate well with computed tomography (CT) are desirable in the management of small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Three dimensional ultrasound (3D-US) technology may reduce inaccuracy because of variations in orientation of the image planes and axis. This study aimed to determine any differences in paired size estimation associated with three 3D-US derived methods using 3D-CT as the gold standard. When CTA was not available, the patients were enrolled anyway to assess 3D-US reproducibility in terms of agreement between two physicians.METHODS: In the period from 1 March 2013 to 27 February 2014, consecutive patients with a small AAA, <5.5 cm for men and <5.2 cm for women, underwent 3D-US examination and three AAA size measures were obtained: dual plane diameter, diameter perpendicular to the residual sac's centreline and a partial volume.RESULT: In all, 122 consecutive US examinations were performed. Patients were excluded because of inadequate AAA size (n = 11) and for technical reasons (n = 11). Thus, 100 patients (F/M; 20/80) with a median maximum AAA diameter of 46 (range 31-55) mm were analysed. The mean US dual plane diameter and the 3D-US centreline diameter were 2.6 mm and 1.8 mm smaller than the mean 3D-CT centreline diameter, respectively (p = .003). The inter-observer reproducibility coefficient was 3.7 mm for the US dual plane diameter and 3.2 mm for the 3D-US centreline diameter (p = 0.222). For the partial volume, the reproducibility was 8-12%, corresponding to a diameter variability of ±3 mm. The median time used for post-processing of the 3D-US acquisition was 72 (range 46-108) seconds per examination.CONCLUSION: 3D-US demonstrated an acceptable reproducibility and a good agreement with 3D-CT, and has the potential to improve future AAA management through more reliable ultrasound guided size estimates.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to investigate whether the fascia suture technique (FST) can reduce access closure time and procedural costs compared with the Prostar technique (Prostar) in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair and to evaluate the short- and mid-term outcomes of both techniques.METHODS: In this two center trial, 100 patients were randomized to access closure by either FST or Prostar between June 2006 and December 2009. The primary endpoint was access closure time. Secondary outcome measures included access related costs and evaluation of the short- and mid-term complications. Evaluation was performed peri- and post-operatively, at discharge, at 30 days and at 6 months follow up.RESULTS: The median access closure time was 12.4 minutes for FST and 19.9 minutes for Prostar (p < .001). Prostar required a 54% greater procedure time than FST, mean ratio 1.54 (95% CI 1.25-1.90, p < .001) according to regression analysis. Adjusted for operator experience the mean ratio was 1.30 (95% CI 1.09-1.55, p = .005) and for patient body mass index 1.59 (95% CI 1.28-1.96, p < .001). The technical failure rate for operators at proficiency level was 5% (2/40) compared with 28% (17/59) for those at the basic level (p = .003). The proficiency level group had a technical failure rate of 4% (1/26) for FST and 7% (1/14) for Prostar, p = 1.00, while corresponding rates for the basic level group were 27% (6/22) for FST and 30% (11/37) for Prostar (p = .84). There was a significant difference in cost in favor of FST, with a median difference of €800 (95% CI 710-927, p < .001).CONCLUSIONS: In aortic endovascular repair FST is a faster and cheaper technique than the Prostar technique.

Objectives: The aim was to investigate whether the fascia suture technique (FST) can reduce access closure time and procedural costs compared with the Prostar technique (Prostar) in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair and to evaluate the short- and mid-term outcomes of both techniques. Methods: In this two center trial, 100 patients were randomized to access closure by either FST or Prostar between June 2006 and December 2009. The primary endpoint was access closure time. Secondary outcome measures included access related costs and evaluation of the short- and mid-term complications. Evaluation was performed pen- and post-operatively, at discharge, at 30 days and at 6 months follow up. Results: The median access closure time was 12.4 minutes for FST and 19.9 minutes for Prostar (p < .001). Prostar required a 54% greater procedure time than FST, mean ratio 1.54 (95% Cl 1.25-1.90, p < .001) according to regression analysis. Adjusted for operator experience the mean ratio was 1.30 (95% Cl 1.09-1.55, p = .005) and for patient body mass index 1.59 (95% Cl 1.28-1.96, p < .001). The technical failure rate for operators at proficiency level was 5% (2/40) compared with 28% (17/59) for those at the basic level (p = .003). The proficiency level group had a technical failure rate of 4% (1/26) for FST and 7% (1/14) for Prostar, p = 1.00, while corresponding rates for the basic level group were 27% (6/22) for FST and 30% (11/37) for Prostar (p = .84). There was a significant difference in cost in favor. of FST, with a median difference of (sic)800 (95% Cl 710-927, p < .001). Conclusions: In aortic endovascular repair FST is a faster and cheaper technique than the Prostar technique.