Search

Aim: To evaluate the current practice of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) surveillance amongst British Society of Interventional Radiologists (BSIR) members. Materials and methods: A web-based survey (Surveymonkey.com) of BSIR members was performed from June 2011 to September 2011. Questions included who was responsible for organizing follow-up, techniques used in follow-up, and timing of follow-up imaging. Results: The majority (46%) of follow-up is organized by radiologists. In the first year, 74% of imaging interactions involves the use of computed tomography (CT), with 40% of respondents using multiple phases. After the first year, ultrasound is utilized more frequently, usually with plain films. Most patients receive imaging at 1, 6, and 12 months, and thereafter most respondents plan on indefinite yearly follow-up. Conclusion: EVAR follow-up protocols in the past have been empirical rather than evidence based. The present survey shows the current range of protocols used in the UK. Despite the frequent use of CT in the first year post-EVAR, there does appear to be a trend towards using ultrasound after the first year of follow-up. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Aim: To present the authors' experience of endovascular treatment of confirmed and presumed (microbiology negative) mycotic aortic aneurysms (MAA).Materials and Methods: Patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair were identified retrospectively from 1998 using the radiology information system and an internally kept database until 2018. The primary aim was to assess the technical success and peri-operative morbidity and mortality. The secondary aim was to assess progression of infection, re-interventions, late mortality, and correlation to antibiotic duration pre- and post-procedure.Results: Thirty-four endovascular aortic procedures were performed for MAA, excluding aorto-enteric fistulas, inflammatory aneurysms, and infected grafts without a new aneurysm. Seventy-six percent of these were thoracic and 24% abdominal. The technical success was 100%. Additional procedures were undertaken in four patients with two requiring a further endovascular procedure. There were two inpatient aneurysm-related mortalities and no inpatient conversions to open repair. The 30-day re-admission and re-intervention rate was 0%. Blood cultures were positive in 45%. There were no secondary graft infections.Conclusion: This is the largest European single-centre study. It supports endovascular management of MAA as a lower-risk alternative to open surgery with the majority of patients presenting acutely, later in life and requiring emergency management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To review the activity and impact of an out-of-hours (OOH) interventional radiology service introduced in Glasgow in 2007. Material and methods: A retrospective review of the first 42 months formal OOH activity across 11 hospital sites covering a population of 1.2 million was undertaken. The 30 day mortality and cause of death was logged for each procedural subtype [nephrostomy, biliary and abscess drainage, enteric stenting, transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPS), thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (TEVAR), endovascular, and embolization]. Results: From October 2007 to March 2011, 502 cases were identified. The mean number of procedures performed per month was 12 (range 5–21). This represents an event rate of 12/100,000 population/year. A minority (11%) of cases were undertaken after midnight. The activity levels were stable over the 42 month study period. The most frequent procedures were percutaneous nephrostomy (32%) and embolization for haemorrhage (30%). Thirty-day mortality was 17% for the entire group but varied from 53% (biliary intervention) to 0% (TEVAR). There was no death following embolization for obstetric haemorrhage. Approximately half of the deaths were due to a failure of the procedure to control the underlying clinical problem. Conclusion: The demand for OOH services is important but not unduly onerous. There is no evidence of expansion of demand after launching such a service. Mortality rates probably reflect the underlying clinical status of this emergency patient group. Certain procedures carry a high mortality rate, raising issues of clinical judgement, appropriateness of intervention, and/or timing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]