Percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy for massive pulmonary embolism using a conservative treatment strategy.

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy (PMT) for treatment of massive pulmonary embolism (PE) has been shown to be technically feasible, although the complication rate of the procedure appears relatively high. Whether a conservative treatment approach defined by an early termination of the PMT procedure once hemodynamic and clinical parameters of the patient have improved is associated with lower complication rates is unknown. We report our experience of PMT in patients with massive PE using the Angiojet system following a conservative treatment strategy. METHODS: From April 2003 until November 2007, 13 patients underwent PMT with the Angiojet system. Indications for PMT were massive PE and either failed thrombolysis or contraindications to thrombolytic therapy. All patients were deemed high risk for surgical thrombectomy. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 12 patients (92%). Mean systemic arterial pressure increased from 87 to 106 mmHg following PMT (P = 0.011), while the heart rate decreased from 119 to 97 beats per minute (P = 0.041). In-hospital mortality was 15% (2 of 13 patients). No complications occurred which were attributable to the PMT procedure. Right ventricular size and function improved in the majority of patients following the PMT procedure. CONCLUSION: Using a conservative treatment approach of PMT for the treatment of massive PE carries a low periprocedural complication rate. The low morbidity was achieved without compromising clinical outcome, documented by an in-hospital mortality of 15%. PMT using a conservative treatment approach may result in comparable mortality, but lower morbidity than PMT using more aggressive, angiographically guided treatment strategies.

Recovery room delirium predicts postoperative delirium after hip-fracture repair.

UNLABELLED: In this study, we sought to determine the incidence of recovery room delirium in elderly patients having hip-fracture repair under general anesthesia and to discover whether recovery room delirium is associated with continuing postoperative delirium. In this prospective study, patients undergoing hip-fracture repair were anesthetized using a standardized protocol. In addition, postoperative pain management was standardized in both the postoperative anesthesia care unit and in the hospital ward. The presence of delirium was determined using the confusion assessment method (CAM) score. Recovery room delirium was assessed by obtaining a CAM score at 60 min after discontinuation of isoflurane. Postoperative delirium was assessed by obtaining a daily CAM score during the postoperative in-hospital recovery period. Fifty patients consented to the study and 47 patients were included in the analysis (surgery cancelled postinduction n = 1; nonadherence to protocol n = 2). Average patient age was 77 +/- 1 (mean +/- SE) yr (range, 56-98 yr). Seventy-seven percent of the study patients were ASA class III or more. The prevalence of recovery room delirium was 45%. The prevalence of postoperative delirium was 36%. Recovery room delirium predicted postoperative delirium (P < 0.001, Fisher's exact test) with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 85%. Analgesic doses administered in the postoperative anesthesia care unit and ward were similar in patients with or without postoperative delirium. Results of this study show that recovery room delirium is a strong predictor of postoperative delirium. IMPLICATIONS: In patients undergoing hip-fracture repair, recovery room delirium is a strong predictor of postoperative delirium when using a standardized protocol for general anesthesia and postoperative pain management.