ABSTRACT
Objective To investigate the current situation in Chinese rheumatologic physicians' clinical diagnosis and evaluation of Takayasu's arteritis (TA).Methods Nineteen rheumatology experts and three vascular surgery specialists in China were invited to make the nationwide investigation for the first time about the diagnosis and disease activity evaluation of TA in China,through the questionnaire survey on the internet.Weighted average was used to calculate the average scores of corresponding problems.Results Chinese experts mainly adopted 1990 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for clinical diagnosis of TA.In details,symptoms of age,limb claudication and amaurosis,signs including pulselessness or pulse weakening,vascular bruits,increasing bilateral pulse pressure and hypertension and acute phase reactants (APR) were critical to the clinical diagnosis of TA.Besides,noninvasive imaging examinations,such as computed tomography angiography (CTA),magnetic resonance angiography (MRA),vascular ultrasonography,and positron emission tomography (PET) were also of great importance.In the aspect of disease activity assessment,Chinese experts mainly used Kerr scoring tool.APR and noninvasive radiological examinations were considered with vital value.Some TA patients with carotid artery involvement were recommended using vascular ultrasonography,while others with pulmonary artery and thoracic/abdominal aorta trunk involvement were preferred CTA other than MRA.Conclusions APR and noninvasive imaging examinations were thought with great help to make clinical diagnosis and evaluation of TA for Chinese physicians.
ABSTRACT
Objective To study the methods and skill of vena cava filter placement via the antecubital access. Methods Six patients with DVT (4 males and 2 females, mean age of 62) underwent vena cava filter placement via the antecubital access in Huashan Hospital from Oct. 2004 to May. 2006. The right basilic vein was punctured with the use of micropuncture technique. SNF (Simon nitinol filter, Bard)was inserted through its carrier into the 90-cm-long sheath. The filter was then deployed with a standard fashion in the IVC, 5 cm inferior to the renal vein. Results The filter was once placed successfully in all six patients within average time of 25 min without complications, but with good healing, exclusion of bleeding and no phlebitis. The position of filter was accurate without deviation and no occurrence of pulmonary embolism. Conclusions vena cava filter placement via antecubital access is easy, minimal invasive, no need of lying in bed postoperatively. It is beneficial for DVT patients as an alternative for the contra-indication to femoral venous access.