Search

Funder: British Society of Interventional Radiology, PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the predictive value of a 'Modified Karnofsky Scoring System' on outcomes and provide real-world data regarding the UK practice of biliary interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective multi-centred cohort study was performed. The pre-procedure modified Karnofsky score, the incidence of sepsis, complications, biochemical improvement and mortality were recorded out to 30 days post procedure. RESULTS: A total of 292 patients (248 with malignant lesions) were suitable for inclusion in the study. The overall 7 and 30 day mortality was 3.1% and 16.1%, respectively. The 30 day sepsis rate was 10.3%. In the modified Karnofsky 'high risk' group the 7 day mortality was 9.7% versus 0% for the 'low risk' group (p = 0.002), whereas the 30 day mortality was 28.8% versus 13.3% (p = 0.003). The incidence of sepsis at 30 days was 19% in the high risk group versus 3.3% at the low risk group (p = 0.001) CONCLUSION: Percutaneous biliary interventions in the UK are safe and effective. Scoring systems such as the Karnofsky or the modified Karnofsky score hold promise in allowing us to identify high risk groups that will need more careful consideration and enhanced patient informed consent but further research with larger studies is warranted in order to identify their true impact on patient selection and outcomes post biliary interventions.

Objective Endoanchor fixation might be a potential adjunct for the prevention and treatment of type Ia endoleak (TIaE) and graft migration in thoracic or abdominal endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs (TEVAR or EVAR). This review aimed to explore the safety and effectiveness of endoanchor fixation in TEVAR and EVAR. Methods A systematic review and random effects meta-analysis was conducted. Data sources were PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Results Seven EVAR and three TEVAR studies using the Heli-FX™ EndoAnchor™ system were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 455 EVAR patients underwent primary endoanchor fixation. Technical success was 98.4% (95% CI 95.7–99.8%). The rate of TIaE and graft migration was 3.5% (95% CI 1.7–5.9%) and 2.0% (95% CI 0.12–6.0%), respectively, after 15.4 months (95% CI 1.76–29.0) follow up. A total of 107 EVAR patients underwent secondary fixation with a technical success of 91.8% (95% CI 86.1–96.2%). Rates of TIaE and graft migration were 22.6% (95% CI 9.1–40.0%) and 0% after a mean 10.7 month (95% CI 7.8–13.6) follow up. Adverse events included three endoanchor fractures, three dislocated endoanchors, one entrapped endoanchor, and one common iliac artery dissection. All cause 30 day EVAR mortality was 0.82% (95% CI 0.20–1.85%). Sixty-six TEVAR patients underwent endoanchor fixation with a mean 9.8 month (95% CI 8.1–11.5) follow up. Technical success was 90.3% (95% CI 72.1–99.4%). The rates of TIaE and migration were 8.7% (95% CI 1.0–18.9%) and 0%, respectively. Adverse events included two misdeployed endoanchors with one fatal aortic dissection. All cause 30 day TEVAR mortality was 11.9% (95% CI 5.4–20.6%). Conclusion Endoanchor fixation in EVAR is technically feasible and safe, with at least comparable early outcomes to the latest generation of stent grafts. Endostapling in TEVAR is associated with lower technical success, higher peri-operative mortality, and potential serious adverse events. Current evidence lacks long term follow up and case controlled trials to recommend endoanchor use in routine practice.

Uterine fibroid embolisation (UFE) is an effective treatment for fibroids. There are varying analgesia protocols published to control procedure associated pain. We aimed to assess what protocols are most effective in controlling post-procedural pain. A systematic review of the Embase and Medline databases was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies regarding analgesia protocols post-uterine fibroid embolisation with Visual Analogue Scale or Numerical Rating Scale pain scores were included. The mean maximal pain scores of patients post-procedure were evaluated. ANOVA and t tests were performed. We identified 26 studies (total 3353 patients), with a mean procedural success rate of > 87%. We stratified protocols into four groups. Mean pain scores were: opioids ± NSAIDs ± acetaminophen (4.84, SD = 1.56); opioids ± NSAIDs ± acetaminophen + nerve block (4.7, SD = 1.37); opioids ± NSAIDs ± acetaminophen + intrauterine artery drug administration (4.09, SD = 0.60); and opioids ± NSAIDs ± acetaminophen + other (5.30, SD = 1.13) without significant difference between groups (p = 0.71). Similarly, there was no difference (p = 0.057) between groups for time to discharge or side effects. There is no evidence to suggest that there is any superiority of one protocol above another in the published literature. Appropriate use of opioids ± NSAIDs ± acetaminophen alone appears to be sufficient to control pain post-UFE. However, due to large heterogeneity of the literature no firm conclusions can be reached, and further research is warranted. Level 1, Systematic review.

To assess the factors contributing to the technical and clinical success of colorectal stenting for large bowel obstruction.268 cases of colonic stenting for large bowel obstruction were performed in 249 patients of mean age of 72 years (28-98) between 2006 and 2013. The majority of strictures were due to malignant disease, 244/268 (91 %). Diverticular strictures accounted for 24/268 (9 %).Overall technical success rate was 81 % (217/268), with a clinical success rate of 65 % (174/268). Duration of symptoms ranged from 0 to 180 days (mean 8 days). Technical success rate was seen to decrease with increasing symptom duration. For symptom duration of less than 1 week, technical success was 85.4 % (181/212) versus 69.6 % (39/56) for those with symptoms of greater than a week (p 0.05). Clinical success rates fell from 71.3 % (107/150) to 59.3 % (70/118) (p 0.05) when attempting to stent lesions of greater than 5 cm. There was also a significant reduction in clinical success when stenting lesions on a bend rather than a straight segment of colon 75.7 % (109/144) versus 59.7 % (74/124) (p 0.05). A total of 20 (7.46 %) perforations were identified during the study. Stent migration occurred in 6.6 % of cases. In-stent stenosis occurred in 3.3 %. The overall 30-day all cause mortality rate was 9 %.Lesion size, location and duration of obstructive symptoms are statistically significant determinants of patient outcome. These factors could be used to advise patient selection for colonic stenting or direct progression to surgical intervention.

Objectives Endoanchor fixation might be a potential adjunct for the prevention and treatment of type Ia endoleak (TIaE) and graft migration in thoracic or abdominal endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs (TEVAR or EVAR). This review aimed to explore the safety and effectiveness of endoanchor fixation in TEVAR and EVAR. Methods A systematic review and random effects meta-analysis was conducted. Data sources were PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Results Seven EVAR and three TEVAR studies using the Heli-FX™ EndoAnchor™ system were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 455 EVAR patients underwent primary endoanchor fixation. Technical success was 98.4% (95% CI 95.7–99.8%). The rate of TIaE and graft migration was 3.5% (95% CI 1.7–5.9%) and 2.0% (95% CI 0.12–6.0%), respectively, after 15.4 months (95% CI 1.76–29.0) follow up. A total of 107 EVAR patients underwent secondary fixation with a technical success of 91.8% (95% CI 86.1–96.2%). Rates of TIaE and graft migration were 22.6% (95% CI 9.1–40.0%) and 0% after a mean 10.7 month (95% CI 7.8–13.6) follow up. Adverse events included three endoanchor fractures, three dislocated endoanchors, one entrapped endoanchor, and one common iliac artery dissection. All cause 30 day EVAR mortality was 0.82% (95% CI 0.20–1.85%). Sixty-six TEVAR patients underwent endoanchor fixation with a mean 9.8 month (95% CI 8.1–11.5) follow up. Technical success was 90.3% (95% CI 72.1–99.4%). The rates of TIaE and migration were 8.7% (95% CI 1.0–18.9%) and 0%, respectively. Adverse events included two misdeployed endoanchors with one fatal aortic dissection. All cause 30 day TEVAR mortality was 11.9% (95% CI 5.4–20.6%). Conclusion Endoanchor fixation in EVAR is technically feasible and safe, with at least comparable early outcomes to the latest generation of stent grafts. Endostapling in TEVAR is associated with lower technical success, higher peri-operative mortality, and potential serious adverse events. Current evidence lacks long term follow up and case controlled trials to recommend endoanchor use in routine practice.

IntroductionCancer survival in England lags behind most European countries, due partly to lower rates of early stage diagnosis. We report the protocol for the evaluation of a multidisciplinary diagnostic centre-based pathway for the investigation of ‘low-risk but not no-risk’ cancer symptoms called the Suspected CANcer (SCAN) pathway. SCAN is a new standard of care being implemented in Oxfordshire; one of a number of pathways implemented during the second wave of the Accelerate, Coordinate, Evaluate (ACE) programme, an initiative which aims to improve England’s cancer survival rates through establishing effective routes to early diagnosis.Methods and analysisTo evaluate SCAN, we are collating a prospective database of patients referred onto the pathway by their general practitioner (GP). Patients aged over 40 years, with non-specific symptoms such as weight loss or fatigue, who do not meet urgent cancer referral criteria or for whom symptom causation remains unclear after investigation via other existing pathways, can be referred to SCAN. SCAN provides rapid CT scanning, laboratory testing and clinic review within 2 weeks. We will follow all patients in the primary and secondary care record for at least 2 years. The data will be used to understand the diagnostic yield of the SCAN pathway in the short term (28 days) and the long term (2 years). Routinely collected primary and secondary care data from patients not referred to SCAN but with similar symptoms will also be used to evaluate SCAN. We will map the routes to diagnosis for patients referred to SCAN to assess cost-effectiveness. Acceptability will be evaluated using patient and GP surveys.Ethics and disseminationThe Oxford Joint Research Office Study Classification Group has judged this to be a service evaluation and so outside of research governance. The results of this project will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publication and presentation at conferences.