Role of Coil Embolization during Prostatic Artery Embolization: Incidence, Indications, and Safety Profile☆.

PURPOSE: To determine if coil embolization is a safe adjunctive measure to prevent nontarget embolization during prostatic artery embolization (PAE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent PAE with coil embolization (cPAE) or without coil embolization (nPAE) between January 2014 and June 2016 was conducted. Adverse events, identified in accordance with SIR guidelines, and procedural variables were compared between the 2 cohorts. RESULTS: Of 122 patients, 32 (26.2%) underwent coil embolization in 39 arteries, with coils placed to prevent nontarget embolization (n = 36), treat prostatic artery extravasation (n = 2), and occlude an intraprostatic arteriovenous fistula (n = 1). Compared with nPAE, cPAE had a nonsignificant increase in dose area product (64,516 µGy·m2 vs 52,100 µGy·m2, P = .053) but significantly longer procedure (160.1 min vs 137.1 min, P = .022) and fluoroscopy (62.9 min vs 46.1 min, P = .023) times. One major complication (urosepsis) occurred in each group (cPAE, 1/32 [3.1%]; nPAE, 1/80 [1.3%]). Both cases resolved after 2 weeks of intravenous antibiotics. A minor ischemic complication (1/32 [3.1%]) occurred in a patient with coil embolization, which manifested as white discoloration of the glans penis and resolved with topical therapy. There were no statistically significant differences in major and minor complications between cohorts at 1-month and 3-month follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS: Although coil embolization leads to increases in procedure and fluoroscopy times, it is a safe adjunctive technique to occlude communications between the prostatic artery and pelvic vasculature to potentially prevent nontarget embolization.

Single-center experience in prostate fiducial marker placement: technique and midterm follow-up.

PURPOSE: To describe the technique, technical success, and complications of prostate fiducial marker implantation using transrectal ultrasound (US) guidance in patients undergoing image-guided radiation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent fiducial marker placement from January 2010-April 2013. In each case, gold markers were placed in the prostate using transrectal US guidance. Computed tomography (CT) was performed after the procedure and evaluated to confirm correct placement. Technical success, complications, and development of symptoms during radiotherapy were reviewed. RESULTS: Transrectal US-guided fiducial marker placement was performed on 75 patients (mean age, 62 y; range, 48-79 y) with a mean Gleason score of 7.25 (range, 6-10). Fiducial marker placement was confirmed in the intended location of the prostate or prostate bed for 297 of 300 markers (99%) on follow-up CT imaging. Two markers were placed just outside the prostate capsule, and one marker was lost. Complications included sepsis (n = 1; 1.3%), self-limiting perirectal or intraprostatic hemorrhage (n = 3; 4%), nausea (n = 1; 1.3%), transient hypotension (n = 1; 1.3%), epididymitis (n = 1; 1.3%), and urinary tract infection (n = 1; 1.3%). Complications were seen more frequently in patients with high tumor grade (P = .001) and in patients who developed metastatic disease (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Transrectal US-guided implantation of fiducial markers is technically feasible, is well tolerated, and has a good safety profile.

Evaluating blunt pancreatic trauma at whole body CT: current practices and future directions.

Blunt pancreatic trauma almost always occurs in the setting of multiple severe injuries, and is usually diagnosed within the context of whole-body trauma CT. Associated injuries may flag the pancreas for greater scrutiny. Main duct laceration is the primary determinant of the need for surgical intervention. Characterization is improved with advanced post-processing techniques. We present useful diagnostic pearls, describe key pitfalls, and review advancements in the evaluation of pancreatic trauma at whole-body MDCT.

Single Center Experience with the AngioVac Aspiration System.

PURPOSE: The AngioVac catheter system is a mechanical suction device designed for removal of intravascular material using extracorporeal veno-venous bypass circuit. The purpose of this study is to present the outcomes in patients treated with the AngioVac aspiration system and to discuss its efficacy in different vascular beds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospectively review was performed of seven patients treated with AngioVac between October 2013 and December 2014. In 6/7 cases, the AngioVac cannula was inserted percutaneously and the patient was placed on veno-venous bypass. In one of the cases, the cannula was inserted directly into the Fontan circuit after sternotomy and the patient was maintained on cardiopulmonary bypass. Thrombus location included iliocaval (2), SVC (1), pulmonary arteries (1), Fontan circuit and Glenn shunt with pulmonary artery extension (1), right atrium (1), and IVC with renal vein extension (1). RESULTS: The majority of thrombus (50-95%) was removed in 5/7 cases, and partial thrombus removal (<50%) was confirmed in 2/7 cases. Mean follow-up was 205 days (range 64-403 days). All patients were alive at latest follow-up. Minor complications included three neck hematomas in two total patients. No major complications occurred. CONCLUSION: AngioVac is a useful tool for acute thrombus removal in the large vessels. The setup and substantial cost may limit its application in straightforward cases. More studies are needed to establish the utility of AngioVac in treatment of intravascular and intracardiac material.