Trends and Outcomes in the Operative Management of Traumatic Vascular Injuries: A Comparison of Open versus Endovascular Approaches.

Controversy exists in vascular trauma regarding the best method of treatment-open versus endovascular techniques. Little has been published on this complex topic. Patients from 2005 to 2013 at a Level I trauma center with vascular injuries were identified via a prospectively trauma registry. Patient data, injury type/severity, treatment, and 30-day outcomes were obtained from the trauma registry and the chart review. Adverse events (limb loss, major disability, and death) were outcomes of interest. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify predictors of adverse events. In all, 346 patients were included (median age 34, range 1-93 years). Median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 10 (1-59). Endovascular repairs (n = 52) increased from 0 per cent (2005) to 32 per cent (2013), and demonstrated equivalent outcomes to open approaches (P = 0.24). On multivariate analysis, higher ISS (P = 0.001), increasing age (P = 0.01), and lower extremity injuries (P = 0.001) were associated with adverse outcomes across the entire series. Endovascular approaches were most commonly used in vascular injuries of the chest/abdomen (39 of 52, 75% of all endovascular procedures in the series, P < 0.001), older patients (P = 0.003), blunt injury mechanism (P < 0.001), and patients with a higher ISS at presentation (P < 0.001). In conclusion, this large series, the use of endovascular procedures increased over time, and was associated with equivalent outcomes to open approaches, despite their higher usage in older patients, those with chest/abdominal injuries, and those with a higher ISS at presentation. Although these retrospective results are encouraging, further prospective study into the role of endovascular therapies in the treatment of vascular injuries.

Gastric electrical stimulation for refractory gastroparesis: predictors of response and redefining a successful outcome.

Predictors of a favorable response and measures of success with gastric electrical stimulation (GES) for gastroparesis remain elusive. Published results remain inconsistent with respect to patient perceived benefit, despite statistical improvements in objective measures of symptom severity. We performed a retrospective analysis of 56 patients with gastroparesis who underwent insertion of a gastric electrical stimulator during the study period. Data included demographics, symptoms, total symptom severity score (TSS, range 0-24, initial and most recent), and gastric emptying times. TSS were grouped into four severity categories (0-10, 11-14, 15-18, 19-24). TSS improvement was defined as movement to a lower severity category. Perception of improvement was compared with that of TSS score improvement using χ(2) test. Etiology as a predictor of improvement was measured using logistic regression. Initial mean TSS was 21, and post-treatment TSS was 13.5. Improvement was significant for individual symptoms and in reduction of TSS for both diabetic/idiopathic etiologies (P ≤ 0.001). No correlation was noted between likelihood of success/failure and gastric emptying times (P = 0.32). Thirty-eight improved (moved to lower TSS category), whereas 18 failed (remained in same category) (P ≤ 0.001), which correlated with perception of improvement. Of 18 failures, 14 (77.7%) were idiopathic. On logistic regression, diabetics were more likely than idiopathic patients to move to a lower TSS category (odds ratio 14, P = 0.003) and even more likely to improve based on patient perception (odds ratio 45, P = 0.005). GES produces far more consistent improvement in diabetics. Further study of GES in idiopathic gastroparesis is needed. Application of the proposed TSS severity categories allowed differentiation of small, statistically significant (but clinically insignificant) reductions in TSS from larger, clinically significant reductions, thereby permitting more reliable application of TSS to the evaluation of GES efficacy.

Evolving treatment of popliteal artery aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, the treatment of popliteal aneurysms has evolved at our institution from sole operative intervention during the initial part of the study period, to combined surgical and endovascular treatment, and finally to endovascular-centered management in more recent years. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of all patients with popliteal aneurysms treated at our institution from 2001 to 2011. Data collection included the indication for intervention, treatment details, interventional patency, limb salvage, perioperative outcome, and midterm survival. RESULTS: Eighty-eight aneurysms (72 patients) were treated during this period. Indications for intervention included symptomatic presentations in 53% (n = 47) and asymptomatic in 47% (n = 41). Treatment included endovascular exclusion in 24, surgical repair in 63 (14 posterior approach and 49 medial approach with bypass and exclusion), and primary amputation in one patient. Nine aneurysms (10.2%) received catheter-directed thrombolysis. Demographics were similar between the two treatment cohorts, except for age with endovascular stenting patients being significantly older (76.0 vs 66.0 years; P = .002). The mean length of stay was 3.9 days vs 9.5 days (P < .001), favoring endovascular treatment. There were no perioperative (30-day) deaths in the endovascular group and one in the surgical cohort. The mean patency follow-up was 21.2 vs 28.3 months. Primary patency did not differ between endovascular and surgically treated patients at 1 year (92.9% vs 83.3%; P = .26) and 3 years (63.7% vs 77.8%; P = .93). No limbs were lost in the endovascular group during the follow-up period of 22.4 months, and one late limb loss occurred in the surgical cohort (mean follow-up, 29.2 months). Endovascular patients had a midterm survival rate of 65% (mean follow-up, 33.9 months), whereas surgical patients experienced a survival rate of 80.8% (mean follow-up, 42.9 months; P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment of popliteal aneurysms provides similar short-term patency to that of the traditional gold standard approach with surgical bypass, with shorter hospitalizations in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Further long-term follow-up is required to compare these two treatment modalities for durability to determine the optimal popliteal aneurysm management.

Malposition of a central venous catheter into the right internal mammary vein: review of complications of catheter misplacement.

Central venous catheters are commonly utilized to gain vascular access for varied clinical indications. Successful catheter placement requires not only technical expertise but also awareness of the potential complications. In this article, we report a malposition of a central venous catheter in a hemodialysis patient. We review the complications of this catheter misplacement, as well as complications resulting from other central venous catheter malpositions.