Journal of vascular surgery
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
Prospective randomized study comparing the clinical outcomes between inferior vena cava Greenfield and TrapEase filters.
Although anticoagulation remains the mainstay of treatment for deep venous thrombosis, the use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters when anticoagulation has failed or when contraindicated remains a safe and effective treatment. Greenfield (Boston Scientific, Natick, Mass) and TrapEase (Cordis, Bridgewater, NJ) filters are arguably among the most popular filtration devices. The Greenfield filter (12F introducer) has been in use for >30 years and has been well studied. The TrapEase filter (6F introducer) has been used since 2000, with a limited number of studies. Good guidelines to help determine which filter to use in any given situation are lacking; therefore, this randomized study prospectively compared the clinical outcomes (access-site thrombosis, filter thrombosis, and symptomatic pulmonary embolism [PE]) between these filters. ⋯ A higher rate of symptomatic IVC/IV thrombosis is associated with TrapEase filter placement. However, the TrapEase filter still has a selective clinical role in the prevention of thromboembolism in selected patients who are coagulopathic. This is the first randomized prospective study comparing IVC filters since their inception in 1967.
-
Comparative Study
The limitations of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in altering the natural history of blunt aortic injury.
Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is accepted treatment for blunt aortic injury (BAI). We hypothesized that immediate TEVAR would reduce deaths from aortic rupture in patients with BAI. ⋯ Mortality remains high for patients with BAI, but most patients who arrive alive at the hospital do not experience aortic rupture. Rupture occurs within the first 4 hours of admission, often before the injury is recognized in time for salvage with immediate TEVAR. The decision to repair BAI was based on the extent of associated injuries and on the individual surgeon's judgment. Survival was not influenced by the timing of repair, but further studies are needed to compare the outcome of open repair vs TEVAR in patients who survive beyond 4 hours.
-
Comparative Study
Evaluating parsimonious risk-adjustment models for comparing hospital outcomes with vascular surgery.
Most outcomes registries use a large number of variables to control for differences in patients. We sought to determine whether fewer variables could be used for risk adjustment without compromising hospital quality comparisons. ⋯ Hospital quality comparisons for vascular surgery can be adequately risk-adjusted using a small number of important variables. Reducing the number of variables collected will significantly decrease the burden of data collection for hospitals choosing to participate in the vascular module of the ACS-NSQIP.
-
We report the case of a 42-year-old man with pleuritic chest pain, shortness of breath, and associated tachycardia. Three months before, he had been treated for similar features with the diagnosis of pulmonary emboli. ⋯ Thrombolysis, a temporary inferior cava filter (ICV filter), and tangential aneurysmectomy and lateral venorrhaphy were performed. Accurate duplex scan evaluation of lower limb venous system is mandatory in all cases of pulmonary embolism; anticoagulation may be ineffective in preventing pulmonary embolism, and the surgical repair is treatment of choice of this pathology because it is safe and effective.