Dealing with complications in interventional radiology.

It is widely accepted that most misadventures, which lead to harm have not occurred because of a single individual but rather due to a failure of process that results in healthcare workers making mistakes. This failure of process and the pervasiveness of adverse events is just as prevalent in Interventional Radiology (IR) as it is in other specialities. The true prevalence and prevailing aetiology of complications in IR are not exactly known as there is a paucity of investigative literature into this area; especially when compared with other more established disciplines such as Surgery. Some IR procedures have a higher risk profile than others. However, published data suggests that many adverse events in IR are preventable (55-84%) and frequently involve a device related complication such as improper usage or malfunction. This article aims to discuss factors that contribute to complications in IR along with tools and strategies for dealing with them to achieve optimal patient outcomes.

Impact of site of occlusion in proximal splenic artery embolisation for blunt splenic trauma.

BACKGROUND: Proximal splenic artery embolisation (PSAE) can be performed in stable patients with Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grade III-V splenic injury. PSAE reduces splenic perfusion but maintains viability of the spleen and pancreas via the collateral circulation. The hypothesized ideal location is between the dorsal pancreatic artery (DPA) and great pancreatic artery (GPA). This study compares the outcomes resulting from PSAE embolisation in different locations along the splenic artery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review was performed of PSAE for blunt splenic trauma (2015-2020). Embolisation locations were divided into: Type I, proximal to DPA; Type II, DPA-GPA; Type III, distal to GPA. Fifty-eight patients underwent 59 PSAE: Type I (7); Type II (27); Type III (25). Data was collected on technical and clinical success, post-embolisation pancreatitis and splenic perfusion. Statistical significance was assessed using a chi-squared test. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases. Clinical success was 100% for Type I/II embolisation and 88% for Type III: one patient underwent reintervention and two had splenectomies for ongoing instability. Clinical success was significantly higher in Type II embolisation compared to Type III (p = 0.02). No episodes of pancreatitis occurred post-embolisation. Where post-procedural imaging was obtained, splenic perfusion remained 100% in Type I and II embolisation and 94% in Type III. Splenic perfusion was significantly higher in the theorized ideal Type II group compared to Type I and III combined (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The results support the proposed optimal embolisation location as being between the DPA and GPA.

Acute mesenteric ischaemia: imaging and intervention.

Acute mesenteric ischaemia (AMI) is an abdominal emergency in which an acute reduction in mesenteric arterial supply threatens bowel viability and may result in bowel infarction, perforation, and death. Despite improvements in diagnosis and treatment over recent decades, mortality rates in AMI remain very high. This article discusses the aetiological classification, pathophysiology, and clinical aspects of AMI. The specific imaging characteristics of each aetiological type of AMI are detailed and the role of different imaging methods in the diagnosis of AMI is discussed. Surgery is the established treatment of choice for AMI, but there is increasing use of endovascular techniques in treating AMI in cases where there are no clinical features of peritonism or radiological evidence of irreversible ischaemia. This article reviews the evidence for different diagnostic and management strategies for patients with AMI and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of surgical and endovascular treatments. Endovascular techniques have been reported to have high technical success rates and favourable outcomes when compared to open surgery; however, patient selection bias and a paucity of data limit the conclusions that can be drawn.

Transcatheter pelvic arterial embolisation for control of obstetric and gynaecological haemorrhage.

We present a 5-year experience of pelvic arterial embolisation at two centres in the UK, and emphasise the role of interventional radiology in the treatment of obstetric and gynaecological haemorrhage. A total of 31 women underwent pelvic embolization:19 patients had complete medical records, and of these, two women had antepartum haemorrhage, 12 women had primary postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), four women had secondary PPH and one woman had a haemorrhage following termination of pregnancy (TOP). The source of the haemorrhage was only identified in four women (21.1%). All patients underwent selective embolisation of the uterine artery or anterior divisional branch of the internal iliac artery with successful haemorrhage control in 17 patients (89.4%) and no immediate complications. Haemorrhage continued despite embolisation in two patients; both proceeded to surgery. Selective pelvic embolisation is a safe and effective treatment for acute obstetric or gynaecological haemorrhage and should be part of the management algorithm for PPH.

Arterial closure devices. A review.

The use of arterial closure devices in achieving haemostasis following arterial puncture has become increasingly popular. This review aims to provide an overview of the currently available closure devices, with an up-to-date summary of the supporting literature. The various devices have their advantages and disadvantages as well as differing mechanisms of actions. Technical aspects of deployment affect the learning curve and ease of use of individual devices. Some complications that arise are device specific where others are related to arterial punctures in general. When choosing a device, all these factors should be taken into account as well as differing clinical requirements and priorities. Most studies of arterial closure devices that are currently in use conclude that the safety profile of closure devices is comparable to manual compression. The literature does not show superiority of any particular device. Caution is advised in extrapolating evidence based on differing patient groups, as many of the study populations are heterogeneous. As physicians become more familiar with the use of closure devices, off-label applications of some devices have emerged, some of which need further evaluation. The ideal closure device should reduce complication rates compared to manual compression, be easy to use with a short learning curve, and have a high rate of deployment success. It should also be usable across a wide range of sheath sizes, not leave any permanent foreign body behind, reduce time to haemostasis and ambulation, allow immediate repuncture, improve patient comfort and be cost effective. In spite of the wide range of devices currently available there remains room for improvement.