Quantifying tissue perfusion after peripheral endovascular procedures: Novel tissue perfusion endpoints to improve outcomes.

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a flow-limiting condition caused by narrowing of the peripheral arteries typically due to atherosclerosis. It affects almost 200 million people globally with patients either being asymptomatic or presenting with claudication or critical or acute limb ischemia. PAD-affected patients display increased mortality rates, rendering their management critical. Endovascular interventions have proven crucial in PAD treatment and decreasing mortality and have significantly increased over the past years. However, for the functional assessment of the outcomes of revascularization procedures for the treatment of PAD, the same tests that have been used over the past decades are still being employed. Those only allow an indirect evaluation, while an objective quantification of limb perfusion is not feasible. Standard intraarterial angiography only demonstrates post-intervention vessel patency, hence is unable to accurately estimate actual limb perfusion and is incapable of quantifying treatment outcome. Therefore, there is a significant necessity for real-time objectively measurable procedural outcomes of limb perfusion that will allow vascular experts to intraoperatively quantify and assess outcomes, thus optimizing treatment, obviating misinterpretation, and providing significantly improved clinical results. The purpose of this review is to familiarize readers with the currently available perfusion-assessment methods and to evaluate possible prospects.

Overcoming ischemia in the diabetic foot: Minimally invasive treatment options.

As the global burden of diabetes is rapidly increasing, the incidence of diabetic foot ulcers is continuously increasing as the mean age of the world population increases and the obesity epidemic advances. A significant percentage of diabetic foot ulcers are caused by mixed micro and macro-vascular dysfunction leading to impaired perfusion of foot tissue. Left untreated, chronic limb-threatening ischemia has a poor prognosis and is correlated with limb loss and increased mortality; prompt treatment is required. In this review, the diagnostic challenges in diabetic foot disease are discussed and available data on minimally invasive treatment options such as endovascular revascularization, stem cells, and gene therapy are examined.

Multicenter retrospective study of transcatheter arterial embolisation for life-threatening haemorrhage in patients with uncorrected bleeding diathesis.

BACKGROUND: We retrospectively investigated outcomes of emergency TAE for the management of life-threatening haemorrhage in patients with uncorrected bleeding diathesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective, study, was designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous TAE for the management of life-threatening haemorrhage in patients with uncorrected bleeding disorder at the time of embolization. All consecutive patients with uncorrected coagulation who underwent TAE for the treatment of haemorrhage, between January 1st and December 31th 2019 in three European centers were included. Inclusion criteria were thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 50,000/mL) and/or International Normalized Ratio (INR) ≥2.0, and/or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) > 45 s, and/or a pre-existing underlying blood-clotting disorder such as factor VIII, Von Willebrand disease, hepatic cirrhosis with abnormal liver function tests. Primary outcome measures were technical success, rebleeding rate and clinical success. Secondary outcome measures included patients' 30-day survival rate, and procedure-related complications. RESULTS: In total, 134 patients underwent TAE for bleeding control. A subgroup of 17 patients with 18 procedures [11 female, mean age 70.5 ± 15 years] which represent 12.7% of the total number of patients, presented with pathological coagulation parameters at the time of TAE (haemophilia n = 3, thrombocytopenia n = 1, cirrhosis n = 5, anticoagulants n = 7, secondary to bleeding n = 1) and were analyzed. Technical success was 100%, as in all procedures the bleeding site was detected and successfully embolised. Clinical success was 100%, as none of the patients died of bleeding during hospitalization, nor was surgically treated for bleeding relapse. Only one rebleeding case was noted (5.9%) that was successfully treated with a second TAE. No procedure-related complications were noted. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis the estimated 30-day survival rate was 84.2%. CONCLUSION: TAE in selected patients with uncorrected bleeding diathesis should be considered as a suitable individualized management approach. Emergency TAE for life threatening haemorrhage in patients with coagulation cascade disorders should be used as an aid in realistic clinical decision making.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for Budd-Chiari syndrome: A comprehensive review.

Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS) is a relatively rare clinical condition with a wide range of symptomatology, caused by the obstruction of the hepatic venous outflow. If left untreated, it has got an high mortality rate. Its management is based on a step-wise approach, depending on the clinical presentation, and includes different treatment from anticoagulation therapy up to Interventional Radiology techniques, such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). TIPS is today considered a safe and highly effective treatment and should be recommended for BCS patients, including those awaiting orthotopic liver transplantation. In this review the pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment options of BCS are presented, with a special focus on published data regarding the techniques and outcomes of TIPS for the treatment of BCS. Moreover, unresolved issues and future research will be discussed.

Locoregional treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma: Current evidence and future directions.

Liver cancers are the second most frequent cause of global cancer-related mortality of which 90% are attributable to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Despite the advent of screening programmes for patients with known risk factors, a substantial number of patients are ineligible for curative surgery at presentation with limited outcomes achievable with systemic chemotherapy/external radiotherapy. This has led to the advent of numerous minimally invasive options including but not limited to trans-arterial chemoembolization, radiofrequency/microwave ablation and more recently selective internal radiation therapy many of which are often the first-line treatment for select stages of HCC or serve as a conduit to liver transplant. The authors aim to provide a comprehensive overview of these various image guided minimally invasive therapies with a brief focus on the technical aspects accompanied by a critical analysis of the literature to assess the most up-to-date evidence from comparative systematic reviews and meta-analyses finishing with an assessment of novel combination regimens and future directions of travel.

Medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones: Analysing the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analysis of powered double-blinded randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety of medical expulsive therapy (MET) in low risk of bias (RoB) randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A Cochrane style systematic review was conducted on published literature from 1990 to 2016, to include low RoB and a power calculation. A pooled meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The MET group included 1387 vs 1381 patients in the control group. The analysis reveals α-blockers increased stone expulsion rates (78% vs 74%) (P < 0.001), whilst calcium channel blockers (CCBs) had no effect compared to controls (79% vs 75%) (P = 0.38). In the subgroup analysis, α-blockers had a shorter time to stone expulsion vs the control group (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in expulsion rates between the treatment groups and control group for stones <5 mm in size (P = 0.48), proximal or mid-ureteric stones (P = 0.63 and P = 0.22, respectively). However, α-blockers increased stone expulsion in stones >5 mm (P = 0.02), as well as distal ureteric stones (P < 0.001). The α-blocker group developed more side-effects (6.6% of patients; P < 0.001). The numbers needed to treat for α-blockers was one in 14, for stones >5 mm one in eight, and for distal stones one in 10. CONCLUSION: The primary findings show a small overall benefit for α-blockers as MET for ureteric stones but no benefit with CCBs. α-blockers show a greater benefit for large (>5 mm) ureteric stones and those located in the distal ureter, but no benefit for smaller or more proximal stones. α-blockers are associated with a greater risk of side-effects compared to placebo or CCBs.

Analgesia for patients undergoing shockwave lithotripsy for urinary stones – a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT Background Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first line treatment modality for a significant proportion of patients with upper urinary tracts stones. Simple analgesics, opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are all suitable agents but the relative efficacy and tolerability of these agents is uncertain. Objectives To determine the efficacy of the different types of analgesics used for the control of pain during SWL for urinary stones. Materials and Methods We searched the Cochrane Renal Group’s Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and also hand-searched reference lists of relevant articles (Figure-1). Randomised controlled trials (RCT’s) comparing the use of any opioid, simple analgesic or NSAID during SWL were included. These were compared with themselves, each-other or placebo. We included any route or form of administration (bolus, PCA). We excluded agents that were used for their sedative qualities. Data were extracted and assessed for quality independently by three reviewers. Meta-analyses have been performed where possible. When not possible, descriptive analyses of variables were performed. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and measurements on continuous scales are reported as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals. Results Overall, we included 9 RCTs (539 participants from 6 countries). Trial agents included 7 types of NSAIDs, 1 simple analgesic and 4 types of opioids. There were no significant differences in clinical efficacy or tolerability between a simple analgesic (paracetamol) and an NSAID (lornoxicam). When comparing the same simple analgesic with an opioid (tramadol), both agents provided safe and effective analgesia for the purpose of SWL with no significant differences. There were no significant differences in pain scores between NSAIDs or opioids in three studies. Adequate analgesia could be achieved more often for opioids than for NSAIDs (RR 0.358; 95% CI 043 to 0.77, P=0.0002) but consumed doses of rescue analgesia were similar between NSAIDs and opioids in two studies (P=0.58, >0.05). In terms of tolerability, there is no difference in post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) between the groups (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.17, P=0.55). One study compared outcomes between two types of NSAIDs (diclofenac versus dexketoprofen). There were no significant differences in any of our pre-defined outcomes measures. Conclusion Simple analgesics, NSAIDs and opioids can all reduce the pain associated with shock wave lithotripsy to a level where the procedure is tolerated. Whilst there are no compelling differences in safety or efficacy of simple analgesics and NSAIDs, analgesia is described as adequate more often for opioids than NSAIDs.

Analgesia for patients undergoing shockwave lithotripsy for urinary stones - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first line treatment modality for a significant proportion of patients with upper urinary tracts stones. Simple analgesics, opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are all suitable agents but the relative efficacy and tolerability of these agents is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of the different types of analgesics used for the control of pain during SWL for urinary stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and also hand-searched reference lists of relevant articles (Figure-1). Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) comparing the use of any opioid, simple analgesic or NSAID during SWL were included. These were compared with themselves, each-other or placebo. We included any route or form of administration (bolus, PCA). We excluded agents that were used for their sedative qualities. Data were extracted and assessed for quality independently by three reviewers. Meta-analyses have been performed where possible. When not possible, descriptive analyses of variables were performed. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and measurements on continuous scales are reported as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Overall, we included 9 RCTs (539 participants from 6 countries). Trial agents included 7 types of NSAIDs, 1 simple analgesic and 4 types of opioids. There were no significant differences in clinical efficacy or tolerability between a simple analgesic (paracetamol) and an NSAID (lornoxicam). When comparing the same simple analgesic with an opioid (tramadol), both agents provided safe and effective analgesia for the purpose of SWL with no significant differences. There were no significant differences in pain scores between NSAIDs or opioids in three studies. Adequate analgesia could be achieved more often for opioids than for NSAIDs (RR 0.358; 95% CI 043 to 0.77, P=0.0002) but consumed doses of rescue analgesia were similar between NSAIDs and opioids in two studies (P=0.58, >0.05). In terms of tolerability, there is no difference in post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) between the groups (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.17, P=0.55). One study compared outcomes between two types of NSAIDs (diclofenac versus dexketoprofen). There were no significant differences in any of our pre-defined outcomes measures. CONCLUSION: Simple analgesics, NSAIDs and opioids can all reduce the pain associated with shock wave lithotripsy to a level where the procedure is tolerated. Whilst there are no compelling differences in safety or efficacy of simple analgesics and NSAIDs, analgesia is described as adequate more often for opioids than NSAIDs.