Percutaneous thermal ablation of sacral metastases:Assessment of pain relief and local tumor control

International audienc

Safety and oncologic efficacy of percutaneous MRI-guided cryoablation of intraparenchymal renal cancers

International audiencePurpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and oncologic efficacy of percutaneous magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided cryoablation of intraparenchymal renal cancer. Materials and methods: Between February 2009 and August 2019, 31 consecutives patients with 31 entirely intraparenchymal biopsy-proven renal cancers were treated with cryoablation under MRI-guidance in our institution, and were retrospectively included. There were 20 men and 11 women with a mean age of 68.5±12.5 (SD) (range: 40-91years). Patient, tumor- and procedure-related, and follow-up data were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Local recurrence free (LRFS), metastasis free (MFS), disease free (DFS), cancer specific (CSS), and overall survivals (OS) were calculated. Results: Primary and secondary technical efficacy rates were 94% and 100%, respectively. Median follow-up was 27months. Seven (7/31; 23%) minor complications were noted in 7 patients. Patients showed a significant decline of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between baseline and nadir (mean basal eGFR 65.9±22.4 [SD] mL/min/1.73m2vs. mean nadir eGFR 52.8±26.0 [SD] mL/min/1.73m2; P<0.001), but only two showed a clinically significant renal function decline. Three-year estimates of primary and secondary LRFS, MFS, and DFS were 64% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 47-87%), 89% (95% CI: 78-99%), 83% (95% CI: 77-98%), and 45% (95% CI: 28-73%), respectively. No patients died due to renal cancer evolution (three-year CSS of 100%; 95% CI: 100-100%). One patient died 52months after the percutaneous treatment due to cryoablation-unrelated causes (three-year OS of 100%; 95% CI: 100-100%). Conclusion: MRI-guided percutaneous cryoablation for intraparenchymal renal cancer offers good oncologic outcomes with acceptable complication rates and renal function worsening

Acute Pulmonary Embolism in Patients with and without COVID-19

Introduction. Acute pulmonary embolism (APE) is a frequent condition in patients with COVID-19 and is associated with worse outcomes. Previous studies suggested an immunothrombosis instead of a thrombus embolism, but the precise mechanisms remain unknown.Objective. To assess the determinants and prognosis of APE during COVID-19.Methods. We retrospectively included all consecutive patients with APE confirmed by computed tomography pulmonary angiography hospitalized at Strasbourg University Hospital from 1 March to 31 May 2019 and 1 March to 31 May 2020. A comprehensive set of clinical, biological, and imaging data during hospitalization was collected. The primary outcome was transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU).Results. APE was diagnosed in 140 patients: 59 (42.1%) with COVID-19, and 81 (57.9%) without COVID-19. A 812% reduction of non-COVID-19 related APE was registered during the 2020 period. COVID-19 patients showed a higher simplified pulmonary embolism severity index (sPESI) score (1.15 ± 0.76 vs. 0.83 ± 0.83, p = 0.019) and were more frequently transferred to the ICU (45.8% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.001). No difference regarding the most proximal thrombus localization, Qanadli score (8.1 ± 6.9 vs. 9.0 ± 7.4, p = 0.45), the proportion of subsegmental (10.2% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.86), and segmental pulmonary embolism (35.6% vs. 24.7%, p = 0.16) was evidenced between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 APE. In COVID-19 patients with subsegmental or segmental APE, thrombus was, in all cases (27/27 patients), localized in areas with COVID-19-related lung injuries. Marked inflammatory and prothrombotic biological markers were associated with COVID-19 APE.Conclusions. APE patients with COVID-19 have a particular clinico–radiological and biological profile and a dismal prognosis. Our results emphasize the preeminent role of inflammation and a prothrombotic state in these patients

Coronavirus Disease 2019: Associated Multiple Organ Damage

A 56-year-old man presented a particularly severe and multisystemic case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In addition to the common lung and quite common pulmonary embolism and kidney injuries, he presented ocular and intestinal injuries that, to our knowledge, have not been described in COVID-19 patients. Although it is difficult to make pathophysiological hypotheses about a single case, the multiplicity of injured organs argues for a systemic response to pulmonary infection. A better understanding of physiopathology should feed the discussion about therapeutic options in this type of multifocal damage related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

High risk of thrombosis in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection: a multicenter prospective cohort study

International audiencePURPOSE:Little evidence of increased thrombotic risk is available in COVID-19 patients. Our purpose was to assess thrombotic risk in severe forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection.METHODS:All patients referred to 4 intensive care units (ICUs) from two centers of a French tertiary hospital for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 between March 3rd and 31st 2020 were included. Medical history, symptoms, biological data and imaging were prospectively collected. Propensity score matching was performed to analyze the occurrence of thromboembolic events between non-COVID-19 ARDS and COVID-19 ARDS patients.RESULTS:150 COVID-19 patients were included (122 men, median age 63 [53; 71] years, SAPSII 49 [37; 64] points). Sixty-four clinically relevant thrombotic complications were diagnosed in 150 patients, mainly pulmonary embolisms (16.7%). 28/29 patients (96.6%) receiving continuous renal replacement therapy experienced circuit clotting. Three thrombotic occlusions (in 2 patients) of centrifugal pump occurred in 12 patients (8%) supported by ECMO. Most patients (> 95%) had elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen. No patient developed disseminated intravascular coagulation. Von Willebrand (vWF) activity, vWF antigen and FVIII were considerably increased, and 50/57 tested patients (87.7%) had positive lupus anticoagulant. Comparison with non-COVID-19 ARDS patients (n = 145) confirmed that COVID-19 ARDS patients (n = 77) developed significantly more thrombotic complications, mainly pulmonary embolisms (11.7 vs. 2.1%, p < 0.008). Coagulation parameters significantly differed between the two groups.CONCLUSION:Despite anticoagulation, a high number of patients with ARDS secondary to COVID-19 developed life-threatening thrombotic complications. Higher anticoagulation targets than in usual critically ill patients should therefore probably be suggested

Strategies to safely rule out pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 outpatients: a multicenter retrospective study

International audienceObjectives: The objective was to define a safe strategy to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 outpatients, without performing CT pulmonary angiogram (CTPA).Methods: COVID-19 outpatients from 15 university hospitals who underwent a CTPA were retrospectively evaluated. D-Dimers, variables of the revised Geneva and Wells scores, as well as laboratory findings and clinical characteristics related to COVID-19 pneumonia, were collected. CTPA reports were reviewed for the presence of PE and the extent of COVID-19 disease. PE rule-out strategies were based solely on D-Dimer tests using different thresholds, the revised Geneva and Wells scores, and a COVID-19 PE prediction model built on our dataset were compared. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), failure rate, and efficiency were calculated.Results: In total, 1369 patients were included of whom 124 were PE positive (9.1%). Failure rate and efficiency of D-Dimer > 500 µg/l were 0.9% (95%CI, 0.2–4.8%) and 10.1% (8.5–11.9%), respectively, increasing to 1.0% (0.2–5.3%) and 16.4% (14.4–18.7%), respectively, for an age-adjusted D-Dimer level. D-dimer > 1000 µg/l led to an unacceptable failure rate to 8.1% (4.4–14.5%). The best performances of the revised Geneva and Wells scores were obtained using the age-adjusted D-Dimer level. They had the same failure rate of 1.0% (0.2–5.3%) for efficiency of 16.8% (14.7–19.1%), and 16.9% (14.8–19.2%) respectively. The developed COVID-19 PE prediction model had an AUC of 0.609 (0.594–0.623) with an efficiency of 20.5% (18.4–22.8%) when its failure was set to 0.8%.Conclusions:The strategy to safely exclude PE in COVID-19 outpatients should not differ from that used in non-COVID-19 patients. The added value of the COVID-19 PE prediction model is minor