Randomised Controlled Trial of Particles Used in Uterine fibRoid Embolisation (PURE): Non-Spherical Polyvinyl Alcohol Versus Calibrated Microspheres.

PURPOSE: The PURE study is a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the clinical and MRI outcomes of patients treated with non-spherical polyvinyl alcohol, ns-PVA (Contour PVA-Boston Scientific-355-500 & 500-700 microns) versus calibrated hydrogel microspheres (Embozene-Varian Inc-700 & 900 microns) for symptomatic uterine fibroids. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, ethically approved non-sponsored RCT in 84 patients in a single UK tertiary IR unit, ISRCTN registry trial number ISRCTN18191539 in 2013 and 2014. All patients with symptomatic fibroid disease were eligible. UAE followed a standardised protocol with UFS-QOL and contrast-enhanced MRI before and 6 months post UAE. Outcome measures included: (1) Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Quality of Life questionnaire (UFS-QOL). (2) Percentage total and dominant fibroid infarction. (3) Uterine and dominant fibroid volume reduction. (4) Volume of embolics. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients completed the QOL follow-up (33 ns-PVA vs 30 Embozenes), the groups were equivalent at baseline. Patients were followed up for 6 months following UAE. There was no significant difference in symptom scores or HR-QOL between ns-PVA and Embozenes, p = 0.67 and 0.21, respectively. 92.7% of patients treated with ns-PVA achieved > 90% dominant fibroid infarction versus 61.8% treated with Embozenes (p = 0.0016). 66% of patients treated with ns = PVA achieved > 90% total fibroid percentage infarction compared with 35% in the Embozene group (p = 0.011). The mean vials/syringes used were 5.2 with Embozenes versus 4.1 using PVA (p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: The PURE study informs IRs regarding the efficacy of embolic agents in UAE, with superior fibroid infarction on MRI using ns-PVA versus Embozenes however no significant difference in clinical outcomes at 6 months after UAE.

Complications and Reinterventions After Fenestrated and Branched EVAR in Patients with Paravisceral and Thoracoabdominal Aneurysms.

The application of endovascular strategies to treat aneurysms involving the abdominal and thoracoabdominal aorta has evolved significantly since the inception of endovascular aneurysm repair. Advances in endograft technology and operator experience have enabled the management of a wider spectrum of challenging aortic anatomy. Fenestrated endovascular and branched endovascular aneurysm repair represent two technical innovations, which have expanded endovascular treatment options to include patients with paravisceral and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Although similar in many ways to standard aortic endografts, fenestrated and branched endografts have specific short- and long-term complications due to their unique modular endograft design and their sophisticated deployment mechanisms. This article aims to examine the commonly encountered complications with these devices and the endovascular reintervention strategies.