Inferior vena cava filters: Concept review and summary of current guidelines.

Anticoagulation is the first-line approach in the prevention and treatment of pulmonary embolism. In some instances, however, anticoagulation fails, or cannot be administered due to a high risk of bleeding. Inferior vena cava filters are metal alloy devices that mechanically trap emboli from the deep leg veins halting their transit to the pulmonary circulation, thus providing a mechanical alternative to anticoagulation in such conditions. The Greenfield filter was developed in 1973 and was later perfected to a model that could be inserted percutaneously. Since then, this model has been the reference standard. The current class I indication for this device includes absolute contraindication to anticoagulants in the presence of acute thromboembolism and recurrent thromboembolism despite adequate therapy. Additional indications have been more recently proposed, due to the development of removable filters and of progressively less invasive techniques. Although the use of inferior vena cava filters has solid theoretical advantages, clinical efficacy and adverse event profile are still unclear. This review analyzes the most important studies related to such devices, open issues, and current guideline recommendations.

Vessel-Guided Mesohepatectomy for Liver Partition and Staged Major Parenchyma-Sparing Hepatectomies with Super-Selective Portal Vein Embolization or Enhanced ALPPS to Achieve R0 Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases at the Hepatocaval Confluence.

Background. R0 minor parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy (PSH) is feasible for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) in contact with hepatic veins (HV) at hepatocaval confluence since HV can be reconstructed, but in the case of contact with the first-order glissonean pedicle (GP), major hepatectomy is mandatory. To pursue an R0 parenchyma-sparing policy, we proposed vessel-guided mesohepatectomy for liver partition (MLP) and eventually combination with liver augmentation techniques for staged major PSH. Methods. We analyzed 15 consecutive vessel-guided MLPs for CRLM at the hepatocaval confluence. Patients had a median of 11 (range: 0-67) lesions with a median diameter of 3.5 cm (range: 0.0-8.0), bilateral in 73% of cases. Results. Grade IIIb or more complications occurred in 13%, median hospital stay was 14 (range: 6-62) days, 90-day mortality was 0%. After a median follow-up of 17.5 months, 1-year OS and RFS were 92% and 62%. In nine (64%) patients, MLP was combined with portal vein embolization (PVE) or ALPPS to perform staged R0 major PSH. Future liver remnant (FLR) volume increased from a median of 15% (range: 7-20%) up to 41% (range: 37-69%). Super-selective PVE was performed in three (33%) patients and enhanced ALPPS (e-ALPPS) in six (66%). In two e-ALPPS an intermediate stage of deportalized liver PSH was necessary to achieve adequate FLR volume. Conclusions. Vessel-guided MLP may transform the liver in a paired organ. In selected cases of multiple bilobar CRLM, to guarantee oncological radicality (R0), major PSH is feasible combining advanced surgical parenchyma sparing with liver augmentation techniques when FLR volume is insufficient.

Duration of response after DEB-TACE compared to lipiodol-TACE in HCC-naïve patients: a propensity score matching analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively compare long-term outcomes of first-line drug-eluting particle (DEB)- transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and lipiodol-TACE, in patients with unresectable hepatocellular (HCC). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our database to identify adult patients with treatment-naïve unresectable HCC, who underwent TACE from 2006 to 2013. Patients were excluded in the absence of complete medical records relative to first TACE, 1-month follow-up, and/or sufficient follow-up data. Periprocedural complications, duration of hospitalization, 1-month tumor response by mRECIST, time to tumor progression (TTP) and target tumor progression (TTTP), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. RESULTS: Out of an initial series of 656 patients, 329 patients were excluded for unavailability of sufficient baseline and/or follow-up data. The remaining 327 patients underwent either lipiodol-TACE (n = 160) or DEB-TACE (n = 167). Patients treated with lipiodol-TACE had a significantly higher tumor burden. By propensity score, patients were matched according to baseline differences (BCLC stage, uninodular or multinodular HCC, and unilobar or bilobar HCC), resulting in 101 patients in each treatment group. Lipiodol-TACE was associated with a significantly higher incidence of adverse events (p = 0.03), and longer hospitalization (mean, 2.5 days vs 1.9 days; p = 0.03), while tumor response, TTP, and OS were comparable. In patients achieving 1-month complete response (CR) of target tumor, TTTP was significantly (p = 0.009) longer after DEB-TACE compared to lipiodol-TACE (median, 835 vs 353 days), resulting in a lower number of re-treatments during the entire follow-up (0.75 vs 1.6, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Compared to lipiodol-TACE, DEB-TACE offers higher tolerability, reduced hospitalization, and more durable target tumor response after CR. KEY POINTS: • Compared to lipiodol-TACE, DEB-TACE is better tolerated and has reduced side effects, which translates into shorter hospitalization. • When complete radiological response according to the mRECIST is obtained 1 month after the procedure, DEB-TACE offers a more durable local tumor control compared to lipiodol-TACE. • In these patients, the longer duration of response after DEB-TACE translates into a lower number of re-interventions.