Outcomes of transcaval endoleak embolization via laser fenestration of the inferior vena cava following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

This report describes a single center experience with laser fenestration of the inferior vena cava for the treatment of type 2 endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Our technique is reviewed, and clinical data after treatment are reported. Twelve patients underwent transcaval embolization via laser fenestration. Technical success was achieved in all cases (100%) with no postoperative complications. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months, no patient demonstrated a persistent endoleak and there were no cases of aortocaval fistula. Transcaval embolization, via laser fenestration, provides an additional strategy for the management of type 2 endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Proper use of noncontact infrared thermometry for temperature screening during COVID-19.

Among the myriad of challenges healthcare institutions face in dealing with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), screening for the detection of febrile persons entering facilities remains problematic, particularly when paired with CDC and WHO spatial distancing guidance. Aggressive source control measures during the outbreak of COVID-19 has led to re-purposed use of noncontact infrared thermometry (NCIT) for temperature screening. This study was commissioned to establish the efficacy of this technology for temperature screening by healthcare facilities. We conducted a prospective, observational, single-center study in a level II trauma center at the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak to assess (i) method agreement between NCIT and temporal artery reference temperature, (ii) diagnostic accuracy of NCIT in detecting referent temperature [Formula: see text] and ensuing test sensitivity and specificity and (iii) technical limitations of this technology. Of 51 healthy, non-febrile, healthcare workers surveyed, the mean temporal artery temperature was [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text] confidence interval (CI) = [Formula: see text]). Mean NCIT temperatures measured from [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] distances were [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text], respectively. From statistical analysis, the only method in sufficient agreement with the reference standard was NCIT at [Formula: see text]. This demonstrated that the device offset (mean temperature difference) between these methods was [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text]) with 95% of measurement differences within [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text]) and [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text]). By setting the NCIT screening threshold to [Formula: see text] at [Formula: see text], we achieve diagnostic accuracy with [Formula: see text] test sensitivity and specificity for temperature detection [Formula: see text] by reference standard. In comparison, reducing this screening criterion to the lower limit of the device-specific offset, such as [Formula: see text], produces a highly sensitive screening test at [Formula: see text], which may be favorable in high-risk pandemic disease. For future consideration, an infrared device with a higher distance-to-spot size ratio approaching 50:1 would theoretically produce similar results at [Formula: see text], in accordance with CDC and WHO spatial distancing guidelines.