Comparison of three embolic materials at partial splenic artery embolization for hypersplenism: clinical, laboratory, and radiological outcomes.

PURPOSE: To compare effectiveness of three widely used embolic agents in partial splenic embolization (PSE) by analyzing their clinical, laboratory, and radiological outcomes within one year of follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study examined 179 patients who underwent PSE to manage hypersplenism secondary to cirrhosis. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to embolic agent used. Group 1 (gelatin sponge) included 65 patients, group 2 (embospheres) included 58 patients, and group 3 (PVA) included 56 patients. Clinical, laboratory, and radiological outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 100% in all groups. Pain as a major complication was lower in the gelatin sponge group (20%) compared to the embosphere group (31%) and PVA group (32.3%). Major complications other than pain were found in 20.1%; 24.6% in gelatin sponge group, 15.5% in embosphere group and 19.6% in PVA group (p = 0.045). WBCs and platelet counts showed a significant increase after PSE in all groups. Entire splenic volume as measured by computed tomography after PSE showed no significant difference among the 3 groups; however, the volume of infarcted spleen was significantly lower in the gelatin sponge group compared to other two groups (p = 0.001). The splenic span was significantly reduced one-year post-procedure in three groups (p = 0.006), and it was significantly less in embosphere and PVA groups compared to gelatin sponge group (p < 0.05). Recurrent bleeding was higher in gelatin sponge group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Permanent embolic materials achieved better laboratory and radiological outcomes than gelatin sponge particles in PSE of cirrhotic hypersplenism patients. However, permanent particles were associated with greater abdominal pain.

Transcatheter drug delivery through bronchial artery for COVID-19: is it fiction or could it come true?

More than 1,200 active or recruiting clinical trials for novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatments and vaccines are registered. Many drugs have shown promise for treatment of COVID-19. Nevertheless, up to date, no drugs have been confirmed as a definitive treatment for COVID-19. Trials such as the SOLIDARITY and RECOVERY are ongoing, and first results were announced in favour of therapy with dexamethasone with a significant trend showing greatest benefit among those patients requiring ventilation. The drawbacks of these trials include exposing the patients to drugs with well-documented systemic adverse effects or unknown complications of novel therapies without proof of clinical benefit. We present here the hypothesis that bronchial artery infusion could be an alternative for systemic drug infusion in COVID-19 trials with superadded benefits of high drug concentration and low systemic adverse effects. The concept of this idea has many uncertainties and no current clinical data to support. Perhaps, the technique should be first applied in animal models to determine its safety and calculate the effective dose of the drugs. Guidelines and reviews of pharmacotherapy for COVID-19 should be implemented for this fiction to come true.