RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) has become a common approach. Hemorrhagic shock associated with the use of iodinated contrast medium (ICM) increases the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Theoretically, eliminating ICM from EVAR can decrease that risk. The aim of this pilot study was to analyze the feasibility and safety of emergent EVAR performed with the exclusive use of carbon dioxide (CO2) for a rAAA. METHODS: Since 2021, all consecutive rAAAs with hemorrhagic shock and suitable anatomical criteria for a standard endograft have been treated by EVAR with the exclusive use of CO2 using an automated CO2 injector (Angiodroid SpA, San Lazzaro di Savena, Italy). RESULTS: Eight percutaneous EVARs were performed under local anesthesia. Median age was 78 (interquartile range [IQR]=6) years, 5 patients were male. The technical success was 100%, the 30-day mortality was 25% (n=2), the median amount of administered CO2 was 400 (IQR=60) ml. The median change in serum creatinine level between admission, post-operative and 30-day values was an increase of 0.14 mg/dL and a decrease of 0.11 mg/dL, respectively. Post-operative AKI occurred in the two patients who died. All 6 surviving patients showed sac shrinkage >5 mm, and no reinterventions at a median follow-up of 10 months. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair of rAAA with the exclusive use of CO2 as contrast agent is technically feasible and safe. Further studies are needed to determine whether CO2 increases survival rate and limits the progression of renal dysfunction after endovascular repair of rAAA. CLINICAL IMPACT: The recorded rate of post-operative AKI after endovascular repair of rAAA performed with the use of CO2 found in this pilot study was significantly lower than the one reported in the literature with the use of ICM. Our hyphotesis is that the use of CO2 during rEVAR might increase survival rate and limits the progression of renal dysfunction.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether higher doses of anticoagulants than recommended for thromboprophylaxis are necessary in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in general wards METHODS: This is a multicentre, open-label, randomized trial performed in 9 Italian centres, comparing 40 mg b.i.d. versus 40 mg o.d. enoxaparin in COVID-19 patients, between April 30 2020 and April 25 2021. Primary efficacy outcome was in-hospital incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE): asymptomatic or symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) diagnosed by serial compression ultrasonography (CUS), and/or symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed by computed tomography angiography (CTA). Secondary endpoints included each individual component of the primary efficacy outcome and a composite of death, VTE, mechanical ventilation, stroke, myocardial infarction, admission to ICU. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. RESULTS: The study was interrupted prematurely due to slow recruitment. We included 183 (96%) of the 189 enrolled patients in the primary analysis (91 in b.i.d., 92 in o.d.). Primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6 patients (6.5%, 0 DVT, 6 PE) in the o.d. group and 0 in the b.id. group (ARR 6.5, 95% CI: 1.5-11.6). The absence of concomitant DVT and imaging characteristics suggests that most pulmonary artery occlusions were actually caused by local thrombi rather than PE. Statistically nonsignificant differences in secondary and safety endpoints were observed, with two major bleeding events in each arm. CONCLUSIONS: No DVT developed in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in general wards, independently of enoxaparin dosing used for thromboprophylaxis. Pulmonary artery occlusions developed only in the o.d. group. Our trial is underpowered and with few events.