ABSTRACT
Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) graft failure can be as high as 16% to 30% owing to endoleak, graft migration, or infection, often necessitating explantation, leading to potential morbidity (31%) and mortality (6.3%). Graft prongs frequently tear through the endothelium during explantation, leading to endothelial damage and subsequent fatal bleeding. The current standard of care involves different suboptimal techniques such as the syringe technique in which a cylinder is improvised by cutting a syringe in half and pushed over the graft hooks in a rotating motion, until covered for manual explantation. Because there is no commercially available product to address this shortcoming in graft explantation, we engage in the biodesign process to produce a functional explantation device. We designed and prototyped multiple potential solutions to remove EVAR endografts safely. Silicone tubing with EVAR endografts deployed in the lumen were used to simulate a grafted aorta and test each prototype. Prototypes were compared in their ability to meet design criteria including decrease in graft diameter, prevention of arterial dissection, ease of use, and decrease in procedure time. After determining the single best prototype, surgeon feedback was elicited to iteratively improve the original design. The most effective design uses a tapered lumenal geometry that decreases the EVAR graft diameter and uses stainless steel beads to prevent shear stress to the simulated aorta. A distal grip allows for easy single hand manipulation of the device, while a latching mechanism allows for smooth placement and removal over the endograft. After rigorous prototyping, our device proved feasible and effective for safe EVAR explantation, allowing this procedure to be performed safely.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In December 2020, Moderna released the mRNA-1273 vaccine. The most common side effects are headache, muscle pain, redness, swelling, and tenderness at the injection site. In addition, there have been dermatological adverse events, such as hypersensitivity reactions. Although rare, various bullous eruptions have been described following vaccination. Bullous pemphigoid has been reported to occur most often after receipt of influenza and the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no reports of bullous drug eruptions resulting from mRNA vaccines. CASE SUMMARY: A 66-years-old obese Guyanese male presented with a bullous rash following receipt of a commercial COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. He received the first dose uneventfully. However, within 24 h of receiving the second dose, he developed fever, myalgias, and malaise accompanied by a painful blistering rash of his torso, arms, and legs. His fever and myalgias improved after 24 h, but his painful rash did not, and five days after the initial symptoms, he presented to the hospital. There were many violaceous, poorly demarcated patches on his trunk, arms, and thighs on examination, many of which had large flaccid bullae within, and a few areas on his buttocks, posterior shoulder, and scrotum were eroded. The exam was also significant for lower extremity muscle tenderness, stiffness with preserved strength. A skin biopsy showed epidermal necrosis and sparse perivascular dermatitis concerning Stevens-Johnson syndrome or erythema multiforme. However, in the absence of mucous membrane involvement or targetoid lesions, the diagnosis of an extensive bullous fixed drug eruption was made. CONCLUSION: This case illustrates that the bullae eruption occurred as a result of receiving the Moderna vaccination.