¿Qué le depara al paciente tras el diagnóstico de trombosis venosa profunda? Estudio de factores pronósticos de la mortalidad, síndrome postrombótico y calidad de vida.

Introducción. El pronóstico de una trombosis venosa profunda (TVP) implica considerar complicaciones como el síndrome postrombótico (SPT), la afectación de calidad de vida (CV) y muerte. Objetivos. Describir la historia natural del paciente tras una TVP, y detectar factores pronósticos de muerte, SPT y CV, además del valor pronóstico del dímero D en el diagnóstico de TVP. Pacientes y métodos. Cohorte histórica (n = 118) de pacientes con TVP; período: 1/1/2001-1/12/2002. Control a 3 años. Valoración con escalas visuales, CEAP, eco-Doppler (ED); CV mediante SF-36 y CIVIQ; dímero D mediante ELISA. Resultados. 118 pacientes (55,1% varones; 59,8 años de media). Fallecidos 31,4%, perdidos 16,1%, casos excluidos 5% y válidos para control clínico 49,2%. Riesgo de muerte: 31,4% (IC 95% = 23,2-40,5); el cáncer fue factor pronóstico de muerte, con RR = 2,9 (IC 95% = 1,7-4,8) y supervivencia media 22 meses menor. A los 3 años (n = 58): 29% clínica positiva y 30% CEAP > 2; 49% presentaron SPT (por clínica o CEAP positivo); 74% ED positivo. Acudir a Urgencias con clínica < 9 días ha sido pronóstico para desarrollo de SPT (RR = 2,7; p = 0,045). La CV ha sido significativamente peor en el grupo con SPT en los dos cuestionarios utilizados. Un dímero D = 3,870 µg/L presenta un valor pronóstico positivo del 94%. Conclusiones. Uno de cada tres pacientes con TVP morirá a los tres años. De los supervivientes, uno de cada dos tendrá un SPT, y mermará su CV. Acudir a Urgencias en < 9 días puede ser un indicador indirecto de gravedad clínica. Un dímero D = 3,870 µg/L en el diagnóstico de TVP predice un SPT en un 94% de los casos

Early results with the custom-made Fenestrated Anaconda aortic cuff in the treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysm

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of a specific custom-made fenestrated aortic cuff in the treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Methods: Between 2013 and 2016, a total of 57 custom-made Fenestrated Anaconda (Vascutek, Inchinnan, Scotland, UK) aortic cuffs were placed in 38 centers worldwide. All centers were invited to participate in this retrospective analysis. Postoperative and follow-up data included the presence of adverse events, necessity for reintervention, and renal function. Results: Fifteen clinics participated, leading to 29 cases. Median age at operation was 74 years (interquartile range [IQR], 71-78 years); five patients were female. Two patients were treated for a para-anastomotic AAA after open AAA repair, 19 patients were treated because of a complicated course after primary endovascular AAA repair, and 8 cases were primary procedures for AAA. A total of 76 fenestrations (mean, 2.6 per case) were used. Four patients needed seven adjunctive procedures. Two patients underwent conversion, one because of a dissection of the superior mesenteric artery and one because of perforation of a renal artery. Median operation time was 225 minutes (IQR, 150-260 minutes); median blood loss, 200 mL (IQR, 100-500 mL); and median contrast volume, 150 mL (IQR, 92-260 mL). Primary technical success was achieved in 86% and secondary technical success in 93%. The 30-day morbidity was 7 of 29 with amortality rate of 4 of 29. Estimated glomerular filtration rate remained unchanged before and after surgery (76 to 77 mL/min/m(2)). Between preoperative and median follow-up of 11 months, estimated glomerular filtration rate was reduced statistically significantly (76 to 63 mL/min/m(2)). During follow-up, 9 cases had an increase in aneurysm sac diameter (5 cases > 5 mm); 14 cases had a stable or decreased aneurysm sac diameter; and in 2 cases, no aneurysm size was reported. No type I endoleak was reported, and two cases with a type III endoleak were treated by endovascular means during follow-up. Survival, reintervention-free survival, and target vessel patency at 1 year were 81% +/- 8%, 75% +/- 9%, and 99% +/- 1%, respectively. After 2 years, these numbers were 81% +/- 8%, 67% +/- 11%, and 88% +/- 6%, respectively. During follow-up, the two patients with a type III endoleak needed endograft-related reinterventions. Conclusions: Treatment with this specific custom-made fenestrated aortic cuff is feasible after complicated previous (endovascular) aortic repair or in complex AAAs. The complexity of certain AAA cases is underlined in this study, and the Fenestrated Anaconda aortic cuff is a valid option in selected cases in which few treatment options are left

Guía Clínica Española del Acceso Vascular para Hemodiálisis

El acceso vascular para hemodiálisis es esencial para el enfermo renal tanto por su morbimortalidad asociada como por su repercusión en la calidad de vida. El proceso que va desde la creación y mantenimiento del acceso vascular hasta el tratamiento de sus complicaciones constituye un reto para la toma de decisiones debido a la complejidad de la patología existente y a la diversidad de especialidades involucradas. Con el fin de conseguir un abordaje consensuado, el Grupo Español Multidisciplinar del Acceso Vascular (GEMAV), que incluye expertos de las cinco sociedades científicas implicadas (nefrología [S.E.N.], cirugía vascular [SEACV], radiología vascular e intervencionista [SERAM-SERVEI], enfermedades infecciosas [SEIMC] y enfermería nefrológica [SEDEN]), con el soporte metodológico del Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, ha realizado una actualización de la Guía del Acceso Vascular para Hemodiálisis publicada en 2005. Esta guía mantiene una estructura similar, revisando la evidencia sin renunciar a la vertiente docente, pero se aportan como novedades, por un lado, la metodología en su elaboración, siguiendo las directrices del sistema GRADE con el objetivo de traducir esta revisión sistemática de la evidencia en recomendaciones que faciliten la toma de decisiones en la práctica clínica habitual y, por otro, el establecimiento de indicadores de calidad que permitan monitorizar la calidad asistencial.Vascular access for haemodialysis is key in renal patients both due to its associated morbidity and mortality and due to its impact on quality of life. The process, from the creation and maintenance of vascular access to the treatment of its complications, represents a challenge when it comes to decision-making, due to the complexity of the existing disease and the diversity of the specialities involved. With a view to finding a common approach, the Spanish Multidisciplinary Group on Vascular Access (GEMAV), which includes experts from the five scientific societies involved (nephrology [S.E.N.], vascular surgery [SEACV], vascular and interventional radiology [SERAM-SERVEI], infectious diseases [SEIMC] and nephrology nursing [SEDEN]), along with the methodological support of the Cochrane Center, has updated the Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis, published in 2005. These guidelines maintain a similar structure, in that they review the evidence without compromising the educational aspects. However, on one hand, they provide an update to methodology development following the guidelines of the GRADE system in order to translate this systematic review of evidence into recommendations that facilitate decision-making in routine clinical practice, and, on the other hand, the guidelines establish quality indicators which make it possible to monitor the quality of healthcare

Guía Clínica Española del Acceso Vascular para Hemodiálisis

El acceso vascular para hemodiálisis es esencial para el enfermo renal tanto por su morbimortalidad asociada como por su repercusión en la calidad de vida. El proceso que va desde la creación y mantenimiento del acceso vascular hasta el tratamiento de sus complicaciones constituye un reto para la toma de decisiones debido a la complejidad de la patología existente y a la diversidad de especialidades involucradas. Con el fin de conseguir un abordaje consensuado, el Grupo Español Multidisciplinar del Acceso Vascular (GEMAV), que incluye expertos de las cinco sociedades científicas implicadas (nefrología [S.E.N.], cirugía vascular [SEACV], radiología vascular e intervencionista [SERAM-SERVEI], enfermedades infecciosas [SEIMC] y enfermería nefrológica [SEDEN]), con el soporte metodológico del Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, ha realizado una actualización de la Guía del Acceso Vascular para Hemodiálisis publicada en 2005. Esta guía mantiene una estructura similar, revisando la evidencia sin renunciar a la vertiente docente, pero se aportan como novedades, por un lado, la metodología en su elaboración, siguiendo las directrices del sistema GRADE con el objetivo de traducir esta revisión sistemática de la evidencia en recomendaciones que faciliten la toma de decisiones en la práctica clínica habitual y, por otro, el establecimiento de indicadores de calidad que permitan monitorizar la calidad asistencial.Vascular access for haemodialysis is key in renal patients both due to its associated morbidity and mortality and due to its impact on quality of life. The process, from the creation and maintenance of vascular access to the treatment of its complications, represents a challenge when it comes to decision-making, due to the complexity of the existing disease and the diversity of the specialities involved. With a view to finding a common approach, the Spanish Multidisciplinary Group on Vascular Access (GEMAV), which includes experts from the five scientific societies involved (nephrology [S.E.N.], vascular surgery [SEACV], vascular and interventional radiology [SERAM-SERVEI], infectious diseases [SEIMC] and nephrology nursing [SEDEN]), along with the methodological support of the Cochrane Center, has updated the Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis, published in 2005. These guidelines maintain a similar structure, in that they review the evidence without compromising the educational aspects. However, on one hand, they provide an update to methodology development following the guidelines of the GRADE system in order to translate this systematic review of evidence into recommendations that facilitate decision-making in routine clinical practice, and, on the other hand, the guidelines establish quality indicators which make it possible to monitor the quality of healthcare