首页 > 最新文献

CVIR Endovascular最新文献

英文 中文
Graft and patient survival following angioplasty for post-transplant portal vein stenosis in children under 7 years: a matched case-control study. 7岁以下儿童移植后门静脉狭窄血管成形术后的移植物和患者生存率:一项匹配的病例对照研究
IF 1.5 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Pub Date : 2025-12-13 DOI: 10.1186/s42155-025-00619-x
Simone Hammer, Anna Dorn, Michael Christian Doppler, Florian Zeman, Christian Stroszczynski, Dirk Grothues, Birgit Knoppke, Stefan M Brunner, Hans Jürgen Schlitt, Wibke Uller

Background: Portal vein (PV) stenosis (PVS) is a common issue after pediatric liver transplantation (LT) and may be associated with severe morbidity. The purpose of this retrospective matched cohort study was to compare graft and patient survival after percutaneous angioplasty (PTA) for PVS in pediatric patients under 7 years with a control cohort without PVS and a cohort with chronic portal vein thrombosis (PVT).

Methods: This study included 31 patients with PVS (intervention group) and 62 patients without PVS (control group). Furthermore, 9 patients with chronic PVT were evaluated (negative control group). Primary endpoints were graft and patient survival. Secondary endpoints were comparison of liver function and clinical course (signs of portal hypertension), procedure-related complications, and long-term patency after PTA.

Results: Graft survival was comparable between the intervention and control group (p = 0.380), with 7-year survival rates of 93% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 84%, 100%) and 88% (95% CI: 80%, 97%), respectively. Graft survival was significantly higher in the intervention group compared to the negative control group p = 0.032; 7-year graft survival was 75% (95% CI: 50%, 100%). Patient survival was significantly higher in the intervention group (p = 0.034), with a 100% 7-year survival rate (95% CI: 100%, 100%) compared to 86% (95% CI: 78%, 96%) in the control group. Survival was reduced in the negative control group compared to the intervention group (p = 0.053). Seven-year patient survival in the negative control group was 88% (95% CI: 67%, 100%). There was one minor procedure-related complication (1/31 [3%]); long-term patency was 100%.

Conclusions: Seven-year graft and patient survival after PTA for PVS were on par with that of patients without PVS. Graft survival was lower for patients with chronic PVT. Clinical course and liver function after PTA were comparable to patients without PVS. These findings, together with the low complication rate and high long-term patency, provide additional evidence supporting the efficacy of PTA in the management of PVS.

背景:门静脉(PV)狭窄(PVS)是儿童肝移植(LT)后的常见问题,可能与严重的发病率相关。这项回顾性匹配队列研究的目的是比较7岁以下儿科患者经皮血管成形术(PTA)治疗PVS后的移植物和患者生存率,其中包括没有PVS的对照队列和慢性门静脉血栓形成(PVT)的队列。方法:选取31例PVS患者(干预组)和62例非PVS患者(对照组)。并对9例慢性PVT患者进行评估(阴性对照组)。主要终点是移植物和患者生存。次要终点是比较肝功能和临床病程(门静脉高压症的迹象)、手术相关并发症和PTA后的长期通畅。结果:干预组和对照组的移植物存活率相当(p = 0.380), 7年生存率分别为93%(95%可信区间[CI]: 84%, 100%)和88% (95% CI: 80%, 97%)。干预组移植物存活率显著高于阴性对照组p = 0.032;7年移植物存活率为75% (95% CI: 50%, 100%)。干预组患者生存率显著高于对照组(p = 0.034), 7年生存率为100% (95% CI: 100%, 100%),对照组为86% (95% CI: 78%, 96%)。阴性对照组与干预组相比生存率降低(p = 0.053)。阴性对照组患者7年生存率为88% (95% CI: 67%, 100%)。有1例轻微的手术相关并发症(1/31 [3%]);长期通畅率100%。结论:PTA治疗PVS后的7年移植物和患者生存率与非PVS患者相当。慢性PVS患者的移植物存活率较低。PTA后的临床病程和肝功能与无PVS患者相当。这些发现,加上低并发症率和高长期通畅,为PTA治疗PVS的有效性提供了额外的证据。
{"title":"Graft and patient survival following angioplasty for post-transplant portal vein stenosis in children under 7 years: a matched case-control study.","authors":"Simone Hammer, Anna Dorn, Michael Christian Doppler, Florian Zeman, Christian Stroszczynski, Dirk Grothues, Birgit Knoppke, Stefan M Brunner, Hans Jürgen Schlitt, Wibke Uller","doi":"10.1186/s42155-025-00619-x","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s42155-025-00619-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Portal vein (PV) stenosis (PVS) is a common issue after pediatric liver transplantation (LT) and may be associated with severe morbidity. The purpose of this retrospective matched cohort study was to compare graft and patient survival after percutaneous angioplasty (PTA) for PVS in pediatric patients under 7 years with a control cohort without PVS and a cohort with chronic portal vein thrombosis (PVT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included 31 patients with PVS (intervention group) and 62 patients without PVS (control group). Furthermore, 9 patients with chronic PVT were evaluated (negative control group). Primary endpoints were graft and patient survival. Secondary endpoints were comparison of liver function and clinical course (signs of portal hypertension), procedure-related complications, and long-term patency after PTA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Graft survival was comparable between the intervention and control group (p = 0.380), with 7-year survival rates of 93% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 84%, 100%) and 88% (95% CI: 80%, 97%), respectively. Graft survival was significantly higher in the intervention group compared to the negative control group p = 0.032; 7-year graft survival was 75% (95% CI: 50%, 100%). Patient survival was significantly higher in the intervention group (p = 0.034), with a 100% 7-year survival rate (95% CI: 100%, 100%) compared to 86% (95% CI: 78%, 96%) in the control group. Survival was reduced in the negative control group compared to the intervention group (p = 0.053). Seven-year patient survival in the negative control group was 88% (95% CI: 67%, 100%). There was one minor procedure-related complication (1/31 [3%]); long-term patency was 100%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Seven-year graft and patient survival after PTA for PVS were on par with that of patients without PVS. Graft survival was lower for patients with chronic PVT. Clinical course and liver function after PTA were comparable to patients without PVS. These findings, together with the low complication rate and high long-term patency, provide additional evidence supporting the efficacy of PTA in the management of PVS.</p>","PeriodicalId":52351,"journal":{"name":"CVIR Endovascular","volume":"8 1","pages":"113"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12701888/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145745369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
A comparative cost analysis of TIPS and BRTO for secondary prophylaxis in gastric variceal bleeding. TIPS和BRTO用于胃静脉曲张出血二级预防的成本比较分析。
IF 1.5 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Pub Date : 2025-12-10 DOI: 10.1186/s42155-025-00625-z
Warren Clements, Abigail Chenoweth, Salam Findakly, Tuan D Phan, Mark Bolger, William P L Bradley, William Kemp, Stuart K Roberts, Matthew W Lukies, Gerard S Goh, Tim Joseph, Christine Ball, Jim Koukounaras

Background: After a gastric variceal rupture, clinical practice guidelines recommend either transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) as interventional options for secondary prevention. This study aimed to generate and compare TIPS and BRTO costing data to calculate the secondary prevention cost following gastric variceal bleeding, to encourage consideration of resource cost within decision-making.

Methods: All costs were included for patients treated between 1 January 2017 and 1 January 2024. Data on procedure, non-procedure, and ward costs were collected. Ward costs were only calculated for elective admissions to reduce bias from inpatient emergency procedures. All costs were measured from a healthcare system perspective and included direct and indirect expenses where relevant. A 5% indexation for inflation was applied to non-fixed costs from 2017 to the 2024 cost year. The cost to prevent gastric re-bleeding was then calculated by adjusting the costing data generated based on existing outcome data in the literature, utilising the largest existing meta-analysis on the efficacy of TIPS and BRTO in preventing re-bleeding.

Results: There were 38 patients in the study cohort, with a mean age 56.8 years (SD 12.0), and 25 patients (66%) were male. TIPS was performed in 27 patients (71%). The TIPS and BRTO groups had similar mean age, proportion of male sex, CP grading, and proportions of elective admissions. The median total cost for TIPS was AUD$11,922 (range $6307-$53,432), while the median total cost for BRTO was AUD$3632 (range $1818-$5174), p < 0.001. The adjusted cost to prevent future gastric re-bleed using TIPS was AUD$14,803, while the cost to prevent re-bleed using BRTO was AUD$3896.

Conclusion: The cost magnitude of both TIPS and BRTO was both low in an Australian model, and both remain good options for patients. However, the use of BRTO was associated with significantly lower upfront procedural costs than for TIPS for secondary prevention of gastric variceal bleeding. Costs should form a key component of the value of IR to modern healthcare.

背景:胃静脉曲张破裂后,临床实践指南推荐经颈静脉肝内门静脉分流术(TIPS)或球囊闭塞逆行经静脉闭塞术(BRTO)作为二级预防的介入选择。本研究旨在生成并比较TIPS和BRTO成本数据,以计算胃静脉曲张出血后的二级预防成本,鼓励在决策时考虑资源成本。方法:纳入2017年1月1日至2024年1月1日期间治疗的患者的所有费用。收集了程序、非程序和病房费用的数据。病房费用仅计算选择性入院,以减少住院急诊程序的偏见。所有成本都是从医疗保健系统的角度来衡量的,并包括相关的直接和间接费用。从2017年到2024年成本年度,对非固定成本采用5%的通货膨胀指数化。然后通过调整基于文献中现有结局数据产生的成本数据来计算预防胃再出血的成本,利用现有最大的关于TIPS和BRTO预防再出血功效的荟萃分析。结果:研究队列中有38例患者,平均年龄56.8岁(SD 12.0),男性25例(66%)。27例(71%)患者行TIPS手术。TIPS组和BRTO组的平均年龄、男性比例、CP分级和选择性入院比例相似。TIPS的中位总成本为11922澳元(范围为6307美元- 53432美元),而BRTO的中位总成本为3632澳元(范围为1818美元- 5174美元)。结论:在澳大利亚模型中,TIPS和BRTO的成本都很低,对患者来说都是很好的选择。然而,与TIPS相比,BRTO用于胃静脉曲张出血二级预防的前期手术成本显著降低。成本应该成为IR对现代医疗保健价值的关键组成部分。
{"title":"A comparative cost analysis of TIPS and BRTO for secondary prophylaxis in gastric variceal bleeding.","authors":"Warren Clements, Abigail Chenoweth, Salam Findakly, Tuan D Phan, Mark Bolger, William P L Bradley, William Kemp, Stuart K Roberts, Matthew W Lukies, Gerard S Goh, Tim Joseph, Christine Ball, Jim Koukounaras","doi":"10.1186/s42155-025-00625-z","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s42155-025-00625-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>After a gastric variceal rupture, clinical practice guidelines recommend either transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) as interventional options for secondary prevention. This study aimed to generate and compare TIPS and BRTO costing data to calculate the secondary prevention cost following gastric variceal bleeding, to encourage consideration of resource cost within decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All costs were included for patients treated between 1 January 2017 and 1 January 2024. Data on procedure, non-procedure, and ward costs were collected. Ward costs were only calculated for elective admissions to reduce bias from inpatient emergency procedures. All costs were measured from a healthcare system perspective and included direct and indirect expenses where relevant. A 5% indexation for inflation was applied to non-fixed costs from 2017 to the 2024 cost year. The cost to prevent gastric re-bleeding was then calculated by adjusting the costing data generated based on existing outcome data in the literature, utilising the largest existing meta-analysis on the efficacy of TIPS and BRTO in preventing re-bleeding.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 38 patients in the study cohort, with a mean age 56.8 years (SD 12.0), and 25 patients (66%) were male. TIPS was performed in 27 patients (71%). The TIPS and BRTO groups had similar mean age, proportion of male sex, CP grading, and proportions of elective admissions. The median total cost for TIPS was AUD$11,922 (range $6307-$53,432), while the median total cost for BRTO was AUD$3632 (range $1818-$5174), p < 0.001. The adjusted cost to prevent future gastric re-bleed using TIPS was AUD$14,803, while the cost to prevent re-bleed using BRTO was AUD$3896.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The cost magnitude of both TIPS and BRTO was both low in an Australian model, and both remain good options for patients. However, the use of BRTO was associated with significantly lower upfront procedural costs than for TIPS for secondary prevention of gastric variceal bleeding. Costs should form a key component of the value of IR to modern healthcare.</p>","PeriodicalId":52351,"journal":{"name":"CVIR Endovascular","volume":"8 1","pages":"109"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12696224/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145716703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The journey continues to make CVIR Endovascular THE open-access journal for all endovascular specialists: a few words from the new editor in chief. 这一历程将继续使《CVIR Endovascular》成为所有血管内专家的开放获取期刊:来自新任主编的几句话。
IF 1.5 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Pub Date : 2025-12-09 DOI: 10.1186/s42155-025-00636-w
Robert A Morgan
{"title":"The journey continues to make CVIR Endovascular THE open-access journal for all endovascular specialists: a few words from the new editor in chief.","authors":"Robert A Morgan","doi":"10.1186/s42155-025-00636-w","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s42155-025-00636-w","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":52351,"journal":{"name":"CVIR Endovascular","volume":"8 1","pages":"108"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12690021/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145709920","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Transhepatic access closure for islet cell transplant in anticoagulated patients: a comparison of microfibrillar collagen paste, coils, and coil plus gel foam. 抗凝患者胰岛细胞移植经肝通道封闭:微纤维胶原膏状、线圈状和线圈状加凝胶泡沫状的比较
IF 1.5 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Pub Date : 2025-12-09 DOI: 10.1186/s42155-025-00623-1
Qian Yu, Patrick Tran, Ethan Ungchusri, Kunal Karani, Abdul Khan, Mikin Patel, Osman Ahmed, Thuong Van Ha, Jonathan Lorenz, Steven Zangan, Brian Funaki, Rakesh Navuluri

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of microfibrillar collagen paste (MCP), coils, and coils combined with gelatin sponge for transhepatic access tract embolization following portal vein islet cell transplant.

Methods: A retrospective review was conducted at a single institution between January 2008 and October 2024, including 20, 28, and 21 consecutive islet cell transplant procedures requiring transhepatic access embolization with MCP, coils, and coil plus gelatin sponge, respectively. All procedures were performed via a right portal vein branch. MCP was performed using Avitene (BD). The average number of coils required in the coil plus gelatin sponge and coil-only groups were 1.8 and 1.6 coils per procedure, respectively. All patients were placed on therapeutic anticoagulation during the procedure and for at least two weeks post-transplant. Medical records were reviewed to compare laboratory results, portal venous pressures, post-procedure liver ultrasounds, and 30-day hemorrhagic events across the three groups.

Results: All procedures were technically successful. However, one instance of coil migration into a portal vein branch occurred in the coil plus gelatin sponge group (1/28, 3.5%). Baseline hemoglobin, platelet counts, and partial thromboplastin time did not differ significantly between groups (p > 0.05). A statistically significant lower international normalized ratio (INR) was observed in the MCP group compared to the gelatin sponge and coil-only groups (1.0 vs. 1.1 vs. 1.1, p = 0.0036 and 0.004). No statistically significant differences were found in hemoglobin changes, post-transplant portal venous pressures, or post-embolization hemorrhagic events (p > 0.05). One patient in the coil plus gelatin sponge group developed a large subcapsular hematoma (1/27, 3.7%), while another in the MCP group experienced a large right hemothorax (1/20, 5.0%).

Conclusion: MCP, coils, and coil plus gelatin sponge are similarly effective for transhepatic access closure following islet cell transplant in anticoagulated patients. However, coil embolization may require multiple coils and carries a risk of migration.

目的:评价微纤维胶原蛋白膏(MCP)、线圈、线圈联合明胶海绵在门静脉胰岛细胞移植后经肝通路栓塞中的安全性和有效性。方法:回顾性回顾2008年1月至2024年10月在一家机构进行的一项研究,包括20例、28例和21例连续的胰岛细胞移植手术,分别需要经肝通道栓塞MCP、线圈和线圈加明胶海绵。所有手术均通过右门静脉分支进行。采用Avitene (BD)进行MCP。在线圈加明胶海绵组和仅线圈组中,每个程序所需的平均线圈数分别为1.8和1.6线圈。所有患者在手术过程中和移植后至少两周内都接受治疗性抗凝治疗。回顾医疗记录,比较三组患者的实验室结果、门静脉压、术后肝脏超声检查和30天出血事件。结果:所有手术在技术上均成功。然而,线圈向门静脉分支迁移的一例发生在线圈加明胶海绵组(1/ 28,3.5%)。基线血红蛋白、血小板计数和部分凝血活酶时间在两组间无显著差异(p < 0.05)。MCP组的国际标准化比率(INR)较明胶海绵组和纯软糖组有统计学意义的降低(1.0 vs. 1.1 vs. 1.1, p = 0.0036和0.004)。两组在血红蛋白变化、移植后门静脉压力或栓塞后出血事件方面无统计学差异(p < 0.05)。线圈加明胶海绵组1例患者出现大的包膜下血肿(1/ 27,3.7%),而MCP组1例患者出现大的右侧血胸(1/ 20,5.0%)。结论:MCP、线圈和线圈加明胶海绵对抗凝患者胰岛细胞移植后经肝通道关闭的效果相似。然而,线圈栓塞可能需要多个线圈,并有迁移的风险。
{"title":"Transhepatic access closure for islet cell transplant in anticoagulated patients: a comparison of microfibrillar collagen paste, coils, and coil plus gel foam.","authors":"Qian Yu, Patrick Tran, Ethan Ungchusri, Kunal Karani, Abdul Khan, Mikin Patel, Osman Ahmed, Thuong Van Ha, Jonathan Lorenz, Steven Zangan, Brian Funaki, Rakesh Navuluri","doi":"10.1186/s42155-025-00623-1","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s42155-025-00623-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of microfibrillar collagen paste (MCP), coils, and coils combined with gelatin sponge for transhepatic access tract embolization following portal vein islet cell transplant.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review was conducted at a single institution between January 2008 and October 2024, including 20, 28, and 21 consecutive islet cell transplant procedures requiring transhepatic access embolization with MCP, coils, and coil plus gelatin sponge, respectively. All procedures were performed via a right portal vein branch. MCP was performed using Avitene (BD). The average number of coils required in the coil plus gelatin sponge and coil-only groups were 1.8 and 1.6 coils per procedure, respectively. All patients were placed on therapeutic anticoagulation during the procedure and for at least two weeks post-transplant. Medical records were reviewed to compare laboratory results, portal venous pressures, post-procedure liver ultrasounds, and 30-day hemorrhagic events across the three groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All procedures were technically successful. However, one instance of coil migration into a portal vein branch occurred in the coil plus gelatin sponge group (1/28, 3.5%). Baseline hemoglobin, platelet counts, and partial thromboplastin time did not differ significantly between groups (p > 0.05). A statistically significant lower international normalized ratio (INR) was observed in the MCP group compared to the gelatin sponge and coil-only groups (1.0 vs. 1.1 vs. 1.1, p = 0.0036 and 0.004). No statistically significant differences were found in hemoglobin changes, post-transplant portal venous pressures, or post-embolization hemorrhagic events (p > 0.05). One patient in the coil plus gelatin sponge group developed a large subcapsular hematoma (1/27, 3.7%), while another in the MCP group experienced a large right hemothorax (1/20, 5.0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MCP, coils, and coil plus gelatin sponge are similarly effective for transhepatic access closure following islet cell transplant in anticoagulated patients. However, coil embolization may require multiple coils and carries a risk of migration.</p>","PeriodicalId":52351,"journal":{"name":"CVIR Endovascular","volume":"8 1","pages":"107"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12690018/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145710030","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Ultrasound-guided antegrade brachial artery access closure: a staged withdrawal technique for improved hemostasis. 超声引导下顺行肱动脉通路关闭:一种改善止血的分阶段退出技术。
IF 1.5 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Pub Date : 2025-12-02 DOI: 10.1186/s42155-025-00591-6
Sabharisundaravel Paulraj, Anadi Gupta, Rohit Khandelwal, Sayantan Patra, Sreeni Sivan Pillai, Shuvro H Roy-Choudhury
{"title":"Ultrasound-guided antegrade brachial artery access closure: a staged withdrawal technique for improved hemostasis.","authors":"Sabharisundaravel Paulraj, Anadi Gupta, Rohit Khandelwal, Sayantan Patra, Sreeni Sivan Pillai, Shuvro H Roy-Choudhury","doi":"10.1186/s42155-025-00591-6","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s42155-025-00591-6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":52351,"journal":{"name":"CVIR Endovascular","volume":"8 1","pages":"106"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12672984/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145656441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Highlighting the increasing need for anaesthetic support in interventional radiology. 强调介入放射学对麻醉支持的需求日益增加。
IF 1.5 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Pub Date : 2025-11-29 DOI: 10.1186/s42155-025-00628-w
Jonathan Hanly, Hugo C Temperley, Christopher O'Loughlin, Niall O'Sullivan, Marliza O'Dwyer, Richard Sweeney, Nazia Kahn, Robert Craig, Kevin P Sheahan

Introduction: The field of interventional radiology (IR) has witnessed rapid advancements, with an increasing emphasis on complex and high-risk procedures. Increasingly, new IR treatments are becoming both available and indicated for patients with complex comorbidities. As a result, anaesthetic expertise has become essential to ensure patient safety, optimise procedural outcomes, and manage perioperative complications. Despite this growing demand, dedicated anaesthetic teams in IR remain limited, which leads to concerns regarding patient safety and procedural efficiency.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, to identify studies published up to September 2024 that examined the expanding scope of IR, with a focus on the increasing need for anaesthetic support. This commentary draws on the existing literature to discuss the interaction between anaesthesia and interventional radiology, with particular attention to procedural sedation, pain management, and the care of high-risk patients. This commentary also evaluates workforce limitations, logistical challenges, and potential benefits of increased anaesthetic involvement in IR.

Findings: Existing literature demonstrates the significant benefits of anaesthetic involvement in IR. The presence of an anaesthesiologist was associated with reduced procedural risks, enhanced patient satisfaction, and quicker postoperative recovery times. Despite these benefits, many IR departments remain under-resourced in terms of dedicated anaesthetic staff. Furthermore, training programmes for anaesthesiologists rarely focus on the unique demands of IR, creating a gap in specialist care. The growing complexity and risk associated with IR procedures underscore the need for expanded anaesthetic support in this field. Hospitals and healthcare systems should prioritise the integration of anaesthetic teams into IR, investing in specialist training and workforce expansion. Doing so can improve patient outcomes and the overall efficiency of IR procedures, reducing procedural risks, increasing patient satisfaction, and facilitating quicker postoperative recovery times.

导读:介入放射学(IR)领域发展迅速,越来越重视复杂和高风险的手术。越来越多的新的红外治疗方法可以用于复杂合并症的患者。因此,麻醉专业知识已成为确保患者安全、优化手术结果和处理围手术期并发症的关键。尽管需求不断增长,但专门的麻醉团队仍然有限,这导致了对患者安全和程序效率的担忧。方法:对包括PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆在内的多个数据库进行了全面的文献检索,以确定截至2024年9月发表的研究,这些研究检查了IR的扩展范围,重点关注麻醉支持需求的增加。这篇评论借鉴了现有的文献来讨论麻醉和介入放射学之间的相互作用,特别关注程序性镇静、疼痛管理和高危患者的护理。这篇评论还评估了劳动力限制、后勤挑战以及在IR中增加麻醉介入的潜在好处。研究结果:现有文献表明,介入麻醉对IR有显著的益处。麻醉师的存在与降低手术风险、提高患者满意度和缩短术后恢复时间有关。尽管有这些好处,许多IR部门在专职麻醉人员方面仍然资源不足。此外,麻醉师的培训计划很少关注IR的独特需求,这在专科护理方面造成了差距。IR手术日益增加的复杂性和风险强调了在该领域扩大麻醉支持的必要性。医院和医疗保健系统应优先考虑将麻醉团队整合到IR中,投资于专业培训和劳动力扩张。这样做可以改善患者的治疗效果和IR手术的整体效率,降低手术风险,提高患者满意度,并加快术后恢复时间。
{"title":"Highlighting the increasing need for anaesthetic support in interventional radiology.","authors":"Jonathan Hanly, Hugo C Temperley, Christopher O'Loughlin, Niall O'Sullivan, Marliza O'Dwyer, Richard Sweeney, Nazia Kahn, Robert Craig, Kevin P Sheahan","doi":"10.1186/s42155-025-00628-w","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s42155-025-00628-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The field of interventional radiology (IR) has witnessed rapid advancements, with an increasing emphasis on complex and high-risk procedures. Increasingly, new IR treatments are becoming both available and indicated for patients with complex comorbidities. As a result, anaesthetic expertise has become essential to ensure patient safety, optimise procedural outcomes, and manage perioperative complications. Despite this growing demand, dedicated anaesthetic teams in IR remain limited, which leads to concerns regarding patient safety and procedural efficiency.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, to identify studies published up to September 2024 that examined the expanding scope of IR, with a focus on the increasing need for anaesthetic support. This commentary draws on the existing literature to discuss the interaction between anaesthesia and interventional radiology, with particular attention to procedural sedation, pain management, and the care of high-risk patients. This commentary also evaluates workforce limitations, logistical challenges, and potential benefits of increased anaesthetic involvement in IR.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Existing literature demonstrates the significant benefits of anaesthetic involvement in IR. The presence of an anaesthesiologist was associated with reduced procedural risks, enhanced patient satisfaction, and quicker postoperative recovery times. Despite these benefits, many IR departments remain under-resourced in terms of dedicated anaesthetic staff. Furthermore, training programmes for anaesthesiologists rarely focus on the unique demands of IR, creating a gap in specialist care. The growing complexity and risk associated with IR procedures underscore the need for expanded anaesthetic support in this field. Hospitals and healthcare systems should prioritise the integration of anaesthetic teams into IR, investing in specialist training and workforce expansion. Doing so can improve patient outcomes and the overall efficiency of IR procedures, reducing procedural risks, increasing patient satisfaction, and facilitating quicker postoperative recovery times.</p>","PeriodicalId":52351,"journal":{"name":"CVIR Endovascular","volume":"8 1","pages":"105"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12662969/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145642629","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Comment on "Underreporting of inferior vena cava filter characteristics in diagnostic radiology reports: a call for standardization". 对“下腔静脉滤过物特征在放射诊断报告中的漏报:呼吁标准化”的评论。
IF 1.5 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Pub Date : 2025-11-27 DOI: 10.1186/s42155-025-00624-0
George Rahmani
{"title":"Comment on \"Underreporting of inferior vena cava filter characteristics in diagnostic radiology reports: a call for standardization\".","authors":"George Rahmani","doi":"10.1186/s42155-025-00624-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-025-00624-0","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":52351,"journal":{"name":"CVIR Endovascular","volume":"8 1","pages":"102"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12657689/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145642642","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
FRAP-CROSS technique: Fracking and Rendezvous-PIERCE for intracalcium crossing in femoropopliteal diffuse calcified occlusions. FRAP-CROSS技术:用于股腘弥漫性钙化闭塞的骨折和穿刺。
IF 1.5 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Pub Date : 2025-11-27 DOI: 10.1186/s42155-025-00626-y
Takuya Haraguchi, Masanaga Tsujimoto, Ricky Wang-Hei Leung, Yaowen Chang, Yuhei Kasai, Daisuke Hachinohe, Yoshifumi Kashima

Background: Femoropopliteal diffuse calcified occlusions (FPDCOs) are challenging, especially in high-bleeding-risk patients for whom a stentless strategy is preferred. We introduce FRAP-CROSS, combining Fracking and Rendezvous-PIERCE, to achieve intracalcium guidewire crossing and facilitate stentless revascularization.

Materials and methods: When bidirectional intracalcium wiring fails across dense calcification in FPDCO, FRAP-CROSS is applied. Fracking is initially performed by inserting a 20-gauge metal needle into a guidewire-uncrossable plaque and applying hydraulic pressure to create microfractures, facilitating subsequent guidewire crossing. If device tracking remains unsuccessful after guidewire passage, Rendezvous-PIERCE is employed. An 18-gauge needle is advanced toward the intralesional guidewire tip, and the guidewire is externalized through the needle (Needle Rendezvous). A 20-gauge needle is then advanced over the externalized guidewire to create a lumen within the calcification (inner PIERCE). After successful all-intracalcium crossing, balloon angioplasty is performed. Inadequate expansion prompts additional Fracking alone or with Jetstream atherectomy (JET-Frack). Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty completes the stentless strategy.

Results: A 90-year-old man at high bleeding risk with bilateral FPDCOs underwent FRAP-CROSS. The right limb required three Fracking and two Rendezvous-PIERCE; the left required four Fracking and two Rendezvous-PIERCE, respectively, with adjunctive JET-Frack. Following DCB-based stentless treatment, final angiography and intravascular ultrasound confirmed adequate luminal expansion and blood flow in both limbs, without major complications.

Conclusion: FRAP-CROSS provides a practical approach to achieve all-intracalcium guidewire crossing and stentless revascularization in complex FPDCOs. Further studies should assess its safety and long-term outcomes.

背景:股腘弥漫性钙化闭塞(FPDCOs)是具有挑战性的,特别是对于那些首选无支架策略的高出血风险患者。我们引入FRAP-CROSS,结合Fracking和pierce,实现钙内导丝交叉,促进无支架血运重建。材料和方法:当双向钙内布线在FPDCO致密钙化中失败时,应用FRAP-CROSS。首先,将一根20号的金属针插入导丝无法穿过的斑块中,并施加液压产生微裂缝,从而促进后续导丝的穿过。如果导丝通过后设备跟踪仍然不成功,则使用幽会-皮尔斯。将一根18号针推进到病灶内导丝尖端,导丝通过针外化(针交会)。然后将一根20号针置于外化导丝上,在钙化处形成管腔(内PIERCE)。在全钙内穿越成功后,进行球囊血管成形术。扩张不充分,需要单独进行压裂或与射流动脉粥样硬化切除术(jet - frak)联合进行。药物包被球囊(DCB)血管成形术完成了无支架策略。结果:一名90岁男性双侧FPDCOs患者接受了FRAP-CROSS手术。右臂需要3个Fracking和2个Rendezvous-PIERCE;左侧分别需要4个Fracking和2个Rendezvous-PIERCE,并配有辅助的JET-Frack。在基于dcb的无支架治疗后,最终血管造影和血管内超声证实四肢腔内扩张和血流充足,无重大并发症。结论:FRAP-CROSS为复杂FPDCOs患者实现全钙内导丝穿越和无支架血运重建提供了一种实用的方法。进一步的研究应评估其安全性和长期结果。
{"title":"FRAP-CROSS technique: Fracking and Rendezvous-PIERCE for intracalcium crossing in femoropopliteal diffuse calcified occlusions.","authors":"Takuya Haraguchi, Masanaga Tsujimoto, Ricky Wang-Hei Leung, Yaowen Chang, Yuhei Kasai, Daisuke Hachinohe, Yoshifumi Kashima","doi":"10.1186/s42155-025-00626-y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-025-00626-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Femoropopliteal diffuse calcified occlusions (FPDCOs) are challenging, especially in high-bleeding-risk patients for whom a stentless strategy is preferred. We introduce FRAP-CROSS, combining Fracking and Rendezvous-PIERCE, to achieve intracalcium guidewire crossing and facilitate stentless revascularization.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>When bidirectional intracalcium wiring fails across dense calcification in FPDCO, FRAP-CROSS is applied. Fracking is initially performed by inserting a 20-gauge metal needle into a guidewire-uncrossable plaque and applying hydraulic pressure to create microfractures, facilitating subsequent guidewire crossing. If device tracking remains unsuccessful after guidewire passage, Rendezvous-PIERCE is employed. An 18-gauge needle is advanced toward the intralesional guidewire tip, and the guidewire is externalized through the needle (Needle Rendezvous). A 20-gauge needle is then advanced over the externalized guidewire to create a lumen within the calcification (inner PIERCE). After successful all-intracalcium crossing, balloon angioplasty is performed. Inadequate expansion prompts additional Fracking alone or with Jetstream atherectomy (JET-Frack). Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty completes the stentless strategy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A 90-year-old man at high bleeding risk with bilateral FPDCOs underwent FRAP-CROSS. The right limb required three Fracking and two Rendezvous-PIERCE; the left required four Fracking and two Rendezvous-PIERCE, respectively, with adjunctive JET-Frack. Following DCB-based stentless treatment, final angiography and intravascular ultrasound confirmed adequate luminal expansion and blood flow in both limbs, without major complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FRAP-CROSS provides a practical approach to achieve all-intracalcium guidewire crossing and stentless revascularization in complex FPDCOs. Further studies should assess its safety and long-term outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":52351,"journal":{"name":"CVIR Endovascular","volume":"8 1","pages":"103"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12657688/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145642644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Patient interpretation and implementation of air embolism prevention guidelines in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT): a survey-based study. 遗传性出血性毛细血管扩张症(HHT)患者对空气栓塞预防指南的解释和实施:一项基于调查的研究。
IF 1.5 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Pub Date : 2025-11-27 DOI: 10.1186/s42155-025-00620-4
Kimberly Wei, Susan Shamimi-Noori, Theodore G Drivas, Scott O Trerotola

Background: To assess how patients interpret and adhere to the International HHT Guidelines' recommendation to avoid intravenous (IV) air and to evaluate whether misinterpretation of this guidance as a strict requirement for in-line bubble filters may inadvertently hinder access to care. An anonymous 15-question survey was distributed to 7000 members of the HHT Research Network. The survey assessed awareness of the guideline, perceived necessity of bubble filter use, and the practical consequences of filter use. Responses were excluded if incomplete or submitted by individuals under 18 years old.

Results: Of the 596 responses received (9% response rate), 446 met inclusion criteria. Most respondents (79%) were aware of the guideline, and 66% interpreted it as requiring use of an IV bubble filter. Notably, 16% of respondents reported refusing care, and 25% reported delaying treatment-most often patient-initiated-due to perceived filter requirements. The interventions affected included essential and, in some cases, urgent care. In total, 20 respondents (4%) reported experiencing a transient ischemic attack (TIA) during IV therapy; two of these occurred despite filter use, and none resulted in permanent deficits. Patients who did not use filters were significantly less likely to report difficulty accessing care (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Although the guideline advises caution in avoiding IV air, many patients interpret it as mandating bubble filter use. This misunderstanding has been linked to delays in necessary care, increased patient frustration, and limited treatment access. These findings underscore the importance of clearer communication and education around guideline intent to mitigate unintended consequences.

背景:评估患者如何解释和遵守国际高温医疗指南关于避免静脉(IV)空气的建议,并评估将该指南误解为对在线气泡过滤器的严格要求是否会无意中阻碍获得护理。一份包含15个问题的匿名调查被分发给HHT研究网络的7000名成员。该调查评估了指南的认知度、使用气泡过滤器的感知必要性以及使用过滤器的实际后果。如果回复不完整或由未满18岁的个人提交,则将被排除。结果:在收到的596份回复(9%的回复率)中,446份符合纳入标准。大多数受访者(79%)知道该指南,66%的人将其解释为需要使用IV泡过滤器。值得注意的是,16%的受访者报告拒绝护理,25%的受访者报告延迟治疗-通常是患者发起的-由于感知过滤器要求。受影响的干预措施包括基本护理,在某些情况下还包括紧急护理。总共有20名受访者(4%)报告在静脉注射治疗期间经历过短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA);尽管使用了过滤器,但其中两例仍发生了这种情况,没有一例导致永久性缺陷。未使用过滤器的患者报告难以获得护理的可能性显著降低(p结论:尽管指南建议谨慎避免静脉空气,但许多患者将其解释为强制使用气泡过滤器。这种误解与必要护理的延误、患者挫折感的增加以及获得治疗的机会有限有关。这些发现强调了围绕指南意图进行更清晰的沟通和教育以减轻意外后果的重要性。
{"title":"Patient interpretation and implementation of air embolism prevention guidelines in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT): a survey-based study.","authors":"Kimberly Wei, Susan Shamimi-Noori, Theodore G Drivas, Scott O Trerotola","doi":"10.1186/s42155-025-00620-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-025-00620-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To assess how patients interpret and adhere to the International HHT Guidelines' recommendation to avoid intravenous (IV) air and to evaluate whether misinterpretation of this guidance as a strict requirement for in-line bubble filters may inadvertently hinder access to care. An anonymous 15-question survey was distributed to 7000 members of the HHT Research Network. The survey assessed awareness of the guideline, perceived necessity of bubble filter use, and the practical consequences of filter use. Responses were excluded if incomplete or submitted by individuals under 18 years old.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 596 responses received (9% response rate), 446 met inclusion criteria. Most respondents (79%) were aware of the guideline, and 66% interpreted it as requiring use of an IV bubble filter. Notably, 16% of respondents reported refusing care, and 25% reported delaying treatment-most often patient-initiated-due to perceived filter requirements. The interventions affected included essential and, in some cases, urgent care. In total, 20 respondents (4%) reported experiencing a transient ischemic attack (TIA) during IV therapy; two of these occurred despite filter use, and none resulted in permanent deficits. Patients who did not use filters were significantly less likely to report difficulty accessing care (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although the guideline advises caution in avoiding IV air, many patients interpret it as mandating bubble filter use. This misunderstanding has been linked to delays in necessary care, increased patient frustration, and limited treatment access. These findings underscore the importance of clearer communication and education around guideline intent to mitigate unintended consequences.</p>","PeriodicalId":52351,"journal":{"name":"CVIR Endovascular","volume":"8 1","pages":"104"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12657698/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145642637","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The contemporary management of parastomal varices by interventional radiology: a systematic review. 当代介入放射治疗造口旁静脉曲张的系统回顾。
IF 1.5 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Pub Date : 2025-11-13 DOI: 10.1186/s42155-025-00615-1
Jack M Bell, Hugo C Temperley, Benjamin M Mac Curtain, Nicholas A Clausen, Robert S Doyle, Noel E Donlon, Kevin Sheahan, Michael J Lee

Background: Parastomal varices are a rare but serious complication in patients with portal hypertension, characterised by bleeding that can be life-threatening in a predominantly comorbid population. Traditional surgical approaches to managing parastomal varices are associated with high morbidity and recurrence rates, prompting increased interest in minimally invasive techniques. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of interventional radiology (IR) procedures, including transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), sclerotherapy and embolisation, in managing parastomal varices.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science, to identify studies published up to January 2025 that reported IR interventions for parastomal varices. Data were extracted on patient demographics, procedural success, recurrence rates and complications. A pooled proportions meta-analysis was performed.

Results: Five studies, encompassing 45 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The pooled technical success rate of IR procedures was 91.3%, with a clinical success rate of 80.5% over a mean follow-up of 618.4 days. The pooled mean proportion of rebleeding, predominantly minor and non-life-threatening, was 36.4%. TIPS showed the highest efficacy, but is traditionally associated with increased procedural risks compared to other interventional radiology methods.

Conclusion: IR offers a highly effective and safe alternative to traditional surgical management for parastomal varices in contemporary terms. The low recurrence and complication rates highlight the potential of IR ab initio as a first-line treatment; consequently, we advocate for its use, particularly in patients unsuitable for surgery in the minimally invasive era.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42024627470.

背景:造口旁静脉曲张是门静脉高压患者的一种罕见但严重的并发症,其特征是出血,在主要合并症人群中可危及生命。传统的手术方法治疗造口旁静脉曲张具有较高的发病率和复发率,这促使人们对微创技术的兴趣增加。本系统综述旨在评估介入放射学(IR)治疗的有效性和安全性,包括经颈静脉肝内门静脉系统分流术(TIPS)、硬化治疗和栓塞治疗吻合口旁静脉曲张。方法:对多个数据库(包括MEDLINE、EMBASE和Web of Science)进行全面的文献检索,以确定截至2025年1月发表的关于口旁静脉曲张IR干预的研究。提取患者人口统计学、手术成功率、复发率和并发症的数据。进行合并比例荟萃分析。结果:5项研究,包括45例患者,符合纳入标准。IR手术的总技术成功率为91.3%,临床成功率为80.5%,平均随访618.4天。再出血的合并平均比例为36.4%,主要是轻微的和不危及生命的。TIPS显示出最高的疗效,但与其他介入放射学方法相比,传统上与手术风险增加有关。结论:相对于传统手术治疗造口旁静脉曲张,IR是一种高效、安全的治疗方法。低复发率和并发症率突出了从头开始IR作为一线治疗的潜力;因此,我们提倡使用它,特别是在微创时代不适合手术的患者。系统评价注册:PROSPERO CRD42024627470。
{"title":"The contemporary management of parastomal varices by interventional radiology: a systematic review.","authors":"Jack M Bell, Hugo C Temperley, Benjamin M Mac Curtain, Nicholas A Clausen, Robert S Doyle, Noel E Donlon, Kevin Sheahan, Michael J Lee","doi":"10.1186/s42155-025-00615-1","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s42155-025-00615-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Parastomal varices are a rare but serious complication in patients with portal hypertension, characterised by bleeding that can be life-threatening in a predominantly comorbid population. Traditional surgical approaches to managing parastomal varices are associated with high morbidity and recurrence rates, prompting increased interest in minimally invasive techniques. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of interventional radiology (IR) procedures, including transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), sclerotherapy and embolisation, in managing parastomal varices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science, to identify studies published up to January 2025 that reported IR interventions for parastomal varices. Data were extracted on patient demographics, procedural success, recurrence rates and complications. A pooled proportions meta-analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five studies, encompassing 45 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The pooled technical success rate of IR procedures was 91.3%, with a clinical success rate of 80.5% over a mean follow-up of 618.4 days. The pooled mean proportion of rebleeding, predominantly minor and non-life-threatening, was 36.4%. TIPS showed the highest efficacy, but is traditionally associated with increased procedural risks compared to other interventional radiology methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>IR offers a highly effective and safe alternative to traditional surgical management for parastomal varices in contemporary terms. The low recurrence and complication rates highlight the potential of IR ab initio as a first-line treatment; consequently, we advocate for its use, particularly in patients unsuitable for surgery in the minimally invasive era.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42024627470.</p>","PeriodicalId":52351,"journal":{"name":"CVIR Endovascular","volume":"8 1","pages":"101"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12615892/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145508054","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
CVIR Endovascular
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1