Ischaemic colitis: practical challenges and evidence-based recommendations for management.

Ischaemic colitis (IC) is a common condition with rising incidence, and in severe cases a high mortality rate. Its presentation, severity and disease behaviour can vary widely, and there exists significant heterogeneity in treatment strategies and resultant outcomes. In this article we explore practical challenges in the management of IC, and where available make evidence-based recommendations for its management based on a comprehensive review of available literature. An optimal approach to initial management requires early recognition of the diagnosis followed by prompt and appropriate investigation. Ideally, this should involve the input of both gastroenterology and surgery. CT with intravenous contrast is the imaging modality of choice. It can support clinical diagnosis, define the severity and distribution of ischaemia, and has prognostic value. In all but fulminant cases, this should be followed (within 48 hours) by lower gastrointestinal endoscopy to reach the distal-most extent of the disease, providing endoscopic (and histological) confirmation. The mainstay of medical management is conservative/supportive treatment, with bowel rest, fluid resuscitation and antibiotics. Specific laboratory, radiological and endoscopic features are recognised to correlate with more severe disease, higher rates of surgical intervention and ultimately worse outcomes. These factors should be carefully considered when deciding on the need for and timing of surgical intervention.

Revascularization Outcomes in Patients With Acute Limb Ischemia and Active Neoplastic Disease.

PURPOSE: To report the outcomes of surgical (ST), endovascular (ET), and hybrid (HT) treatment in cancer patients with acute limb ischemia (ALI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective registry collected 139 patients (mean age 72.3±12.4 years; 73 men) with ALI and active malignancy treated by ET (41, 29%), ST (70, 51%), or HT (28, 20%) in 7 European centers between July 2007 and February 2019. In 22 cases (16%) ALI was the first manifestation of the malignancy. Lung cancer was the most common diagnosis (38, 27%). The primary composite outcome was amputation-free survival (AFS). Overall survival, amputation-free time (AFT), and reintervention-free time (RFT) were also assessed. Cox regression analysis was applied to identify independent risk factors for the primary and secondary outcomes. Results are presented as the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: ET was associated with improved 12-month AFS compared with both ST (HR 2.27, 95% CI 1.20 to 4.28, p=0.002) and HT (HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.18, p=0.008). ST (HR 2.50, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.53, p=0.003) and HT (HR 3.10, 95% CI 1.45 to 6.65, p<0.001) were related to an increased risk for mortality compared with ET. At 12 months, the AFT was similar between the 3 groups (ET vs ST: HR 1.52, 95% CI 0.51 to 4.53, p=0.45 and ET vs HT: HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.11, p=0.73). The 12-month RFT also did not differ significantly between the 3 treatment options (ET vs ST: HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.46, p=0.79 and ET vs HT: HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17, p=0.19). ST and/or HT increased the risk for the major amputation and/or death (HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.05, p=0.03), while Rutherford class I ischemia (HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.90, p=0.04) and previous vascular interventions on the index limb (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.97, p=0.04) showed a protective effect. CONCLUSION: In patients with ALI and active malignant disease, ET was associated with increased AFS and overall survival compared with both ST and HT, while the limb salvage and reintervention rates were comparable among the 3 groups.

The Effect of Malignancy on Outcomes Following Revascularization for Critical Limb Ischemia: A Case-Control Study.

AIM: Malignancy is common in patients presenting with critical lower limb ischemia (CLI). However, outcomes in patients with concomitant active malignancy and CLI have not been well defined in comparative prospective analyses. Using contemporary prospective data, we aimed to assess outcomes following revascularization in patients with CLI and active malignancy. METHODS: A nested case-control study was performed using data from 2 tertiary referral centers for vascular disease. A total of 48 consecutive patients undergoing intervention for CLI who had a diagnosis of active malignancy were identified and matched to patients with CLI but no malignancy for age, sex, diabetes, and smoking. Patency rates and morbidity/mortality were assessed using duplex ultrasonography and regular clinical review. RESULTS: A total of 48 consecutive patients (median age: 74.5 years; interquartile range: 68-80 years) with active malignancy and CLI were identified and case-matched (age, sex, diabetes, and smoking) to 48 patients undergoing intervention for CLI who had no malignancy. Major cardiovascular risk factors did not differ. All-cause mortality was 23% versus 12% ( P = .41) at 6 months and 54% versus 15% ( P < .001) at 12 months. None of the patients died due to complications relating directly to the lower limb intervention or within 30 days of the intervention. A total of 4 (8.3%) patients had required a major limb amputation at 6 months in both groups, compared with 5 (10.4%) patients with malignancy versus 4 (8.3%) patients without ( P = .73) at 12 months. Patency rates were similar at 12 months (73% vs 80%). Three patients had required reintervention in both groups (endovascular in all cases) at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Revascularization can be offered safely in selected patients with active malignancy; patency rates in those surviving to 1 year are similar to patients without malignancy.