RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Proximal splenic artery embolization plays an important role in the treatment of hemodynamically stable blunt splenic trauma patients with medium- to high-grade injuries. Proximal splenic artery embolization is most often performed utilizing endovascular coils or vascular plugs. The objective of this study was to compare technical and clinical outcomes of proximal splenic artery embolization using either endovascular coils or vascular plugs in patients with traumatic splenic injuries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review of all proximal splenic artery embolizations for trauma over a 5-year period was performed. Patients who underwent embolization using both endovascular coils and vascular plugs were excluded. Baseline characteristics, including patient age, sex, and grade of splenic injury, were recorded. Complication rates, rates of splenic salvage, and total fluoroscopy time were recorded and compared. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients were included in the analysis (17 males, 9 females, median age: 50 years). Of these, 15 patients were treated with vascular plugs (57.7%), while 11 patients (42.3%) were treated with endovascular coils. Mean grade of injury was 3.5 and 4.1 in the vascular plug and endovascular coils groups, respectively. There were no differences between the groups regarding these baseline characteristics. Splenic salvage was 100% in both groups. No major complications were identified in either group. Mean fluoroscopy time was significantly lower in the vascular plug group (14.5 versus 34.0 min; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Proximal splenic artery embolization for splenic trauma can be satisfactorily achieved with either vascular plugs or endovascular coils with no differences in splenic salvage or complication rates in this retrospective study. However, embolization utilizing vascular plugs had significantly reduced fluoroscopy times.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: There has been a substantial decline in patients presenting for emergent and routine cardiovascular care in the United States after the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We sought to assess the risk of adverse clinical outcomes among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic period and compare the risks with those undergoing CABG before the pandemic in the year 2019. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the TriNetX Research Network database was performed. Patients undergoing CABG between January 20, 2019, and September 15, 2019, contributed to the 2019 cohort, and those undergoing CABG between January 20, 2020, and September 15, 2020, contributed to the 2020 cohort. Propensity-score matching was performed, and the odds of mortality, acute kidney injury, stroke, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and mechanical ventilation occurring by 30 days were evaluated. RESULTS: The number of patients undergoing CABG in 2020 declined by 35.5% from 5534 patients in 2019 to 3569 patients in 2020. After propensity-score matching, 3569 patient pairs were identified in the 2019 and the 2020 cohorts. Compared with those undergoing CABG in 2019, the odds of mortality by 30 days were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.33; P = .80) in those undergoing CABG in 2020. The odds for stroke (odds ratio [OR], 1.201; 95% CI, 0.96-1.39), acute kidney injury (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-1.08), acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.60-2.42), and mechanical ventilation (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94-1.30) were similar between the 2 cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients undergoing CABG in 2020 has substantially declined compared with 2019. Similar odds of adverse clinical outcomes were seen among patients undergoing CABG in the setting of COVID-19 compared with those in 2019.