Early and late results of open surgical and endovascular treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms, selected according to surgical risk / Resultados precoces e tardios dos tratamentos aberto e endovascular de aneurismas da aorta abdominal infrarrenal, selecionados de acordo com o risco cirúrgico

Abstract Background Open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) surgery are alternative treatments for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (IRAAA). Objectives To compare OSR and EVAR for the treatment of IRAAA. Methods 119 patients with IRAAA were electively operated by the same surgeon between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2015, following selection for OSR or EVAR according to surgical risk. Complications, reinterventions, failures, and early and late mortality were analyzed. Results 63 OSR and 56 EVAR patients were analyzed. They were similar in terms of age (70 years), gender (92% men), and average diameter of IRAAA (6.5 cm), but with different comorbidities, surgical risk, and anatomy. EVAR was better than OSR regarding time in the operating theatre (177.5 vs. 233.3 minutes), need for transfusion (25 vs. 73%), and length of stay in ICU (1.3 vs. 3.3 days) and hospital (8.1 vs. 11.1 days). OSR allowed more associated procedures to be conducted simultaneously (19.0 vs. 1.8%). There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to complications (25.4 vs. 25.1%), reinterventions (3.2 vs. 5.2%), or early mortality (1.6 vs. 0%). During follow-up, OSR was associated with fewer revisions (3.13 vs. 4.21), angio-CTs (0.22 vs. 3.23), complications (6.4 vs. 37.5%), reinterventions (3.2 vs. 23.2%), and failures (1.6 vs. 10.7%), and had better survival (78.2 vs. 63.2%). Conclusions Correct selection of patients achieves excellent results because it avoids OSR in patients at high risk and avoids EVAR in patients with high anatomical complexity, achieving similar results in the perioperative period, but better results for OSR over the course of follow-up.

Resumo Contexto A cirurgia aberta (CA) e o reparo endovascular de aneurisma (REVA) são tratamentos alternativos para o aneurisma da aorta abdominal infrarrenal (AAAIR). Objetivos Comparar CA e REVA no tratamento do AAAIR. Métodos Foram incluídos 119 pacientes com AAAIR, operados eletivamente pelo mesmo cirurgião entre 1 de janeiro de 2006 e 31 de dezembro de 2015, após seleção para CA ou REVA de acordo com o risco cirúrgico. Complicações, reintervenções, falhas e mortalidade precoce e tardia foram analisadas. Resultados Foram analisados 63 pacientes de CA e 56 de REVA, com semelhanças de idade (70 anos), sexo (92% homens) e diâmetro médio do AAAIR (6,5 cm), mas com diferentes comorbidades, riscos cirúrgicos e anatomias. O REVA foi melhor que a CA em relação ao tempo na sala de cirurgia (177,5 vs. 233,3 minutos), necessidade de transfusão (25 vs. 73%) e tempo de permanência na unidade de terapia intensiva (1,3 vs. 3,3 dias) e no hospital (8,1 vs. 11,1 dias). A CA permitiu que mais procedimentos associados fossem realizados simultaneamente (19,0 vs. 1,8%). Não houve diferenças significativas entre os grupos em relação a complicações (25,4 vs. 25,1%), reintervenções (3,2 vs. 5,2%) e mortalidade precoce (1,6 vs. 0%). Durante o acompanhamento, a CA apresentou menos revisões (3,13 vs. 4,21), angiotomografias (0,22 vs. 3,23), complicações (6,4 vs. 37,5%), reintervenções (3,2 vs. 23,2%) e falhas (1,6 vs. 10,7%), além de ter melhor sobrevida (78,2 vs. 63,2%). Conclusões A seleção correta dos pacientes proporciona excelentes resultados porque evita pacientes com alto risco para CA e com complexidade anatômica para REVA. Os resultados são semelhantes no período perioperatório, mas melhores para CA durante o acompanhamento.

Randomized single-blind trial of topical ketanserin for healing acceleration of diabetic foot ulcers

The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of topically applied ketanserin for healing acceleration of diabetic foot ulcers. From august 1993 to september 1994, 140 NIDDM patients entered a randomized single-blind trial of topical ketanserin (Sufrexal, Janssen Pharmaceuticals; n=69) vs. normal saline (labeled here as placebo; n=71). All patients were subjected to surgical debridement of necrotic tissue and lavage with normal saline. Wound were <100 cm² in area. Persons with NIDDM and foot ulcers Wagner 2 and 3 with a median of 8 (interquartile range 4 -26) weeks duration were included. Ulcer area was measured at 0, 4, 8 and 12 weeks. The groups were similar in age, sex, years of diabetes duration, obesity, ulcer Wagner type, number of previous amputations and surgical debridements during this hospital stay. Average percent reduction in ulcer area at 12 weeks was 87 percent for ketanserin vs. 63 percent for placebo (p<0.001). The regression equations for the leastsquares fit to the area (y) against time (x) data points were y = 43.46-3.181x(r=0.995) for ketanserin and y= 39.46-2.016x(r=-0.999) for placebo (p<0.01). The 95 percent confidence limits for slopes were -3.181 ñ 0.98 and -2.016ñ0.15. Thus, average daily reduction in ulcer area was 4.5 mm²/day for ketanserin vs. 2.88 mm²/day for placebo. In clnclusion, topical ketanserin significantly accelerated wound healing in diaetic neurothrophic foot ulcers when applied as part of a comprehensive healing program