Value of follow-up angiography: additional interventions in patients undergoing catheter-directed thrombolysis for massive and submassive pulmonary embolism

PURPOSECatheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) is an emerging, minimally invasive treatment for patients with massive and submassive pulmonary embolism (PE). The value of follow-up pulmonary angiography for evaluating improvement after CDT is limited by a paucity of large studies assessing its utility and role for additional intervention. The purpose of our study was to assess the role of next-day pulmonary angiography for CDT in patients with acute massive and submassive PE undergoing continuous pulmonary arterial pressure monitoring, and secondarily, determine factors that are correlated with a need for further therapy.METHODSPatients who underwent CDT from 2006 to 2016 for massive and submassive PE were reviewed. Patient demographics, comorbidities, preprocedural lab results, noninvasive hemodynamic studies, and technical variables were recorded. Among patients receiving next-day angiography, those requiring further therapy, defined as continued CDT beyond the standard 24 hours (with or without catheter repositioning or exchange) and/or mechanical or suction thrombectomy were contrasted with those not requiring additional therapy to assess for the role of angiography and patient factors that correlate with need for further therapy.RESULTSThirty-two patients underwent CDT for massive (n=14) and submassive (n=18) PE. Eighteen (56.3%) were male, 14 (43.7%) were Caucasian, 18 (56.3%) were African-American, with a mean age of 66.2 years (range, 26–87 years). Of the 27 (84.4%) patients that underwent next-day pulmonary angiography, 16 (59.3%) did not require additional therapy and 11 (40.7%) did require additional therapy. Additional therapy included extended CDT beyond 24 hours (n=4), mechanical/suction thrombectomy (n=5), or both extended CDT and mechanical/suction thrombectomy (n=2). Younger age (50.1 vs. 62.2 years, P = 0.039) was correlated with a need for further therapy. Initial (40.7 vs. 34.8 mmHg, P = 0.248), next-day (31.5 vs. 26.3 mmHg, P = 0.259), and interval change (4.6 vs. 8.0 mmHg, P = 0.669) in pulmonary artery pressures were not statistically significant between patient subsets. Preprocedural right ventricular/left ventricular ratio (RV/LV) also did not differ significantly (1.74 vs. 1.75, P = 0.961). Thirty-day mortality was comparable (2 vs. 1, P = 0.332).CONCLUSIONNext-day pulmonary angiography is a useful method to identify patients needing additional therapy including extended CDT and/or mechanical or suction thrombectomy in acute PE management. Pulmonary arterial pressures and preprocedural RV/LV ratios were not found to be predicative of those requiring further intervention

Assessment of complication rates based on time of feeding initiation in radiologically guided gastrostomy tubes: a retrospective study

PURPOSEWe aimed to assess the association between complication rate and time to feeding in a cohort of patients undergoing radiologically guided placement of gastrostomy tubes.METHODSA retrospective study was conducted of all patients receiving pull-type and push-type gastrostomy tubes placed by interventional radiologists between January 1st, 2017 and December 31st, 2018 at a single institution. Primary outcomes included procedural and tube-related complications per medical chart review with a follow-up interval of 30 days. Exclusion criteria were enteral nutrition delayed more than 48 hours, no feeding information, and tubes placed for venting (n=20). Overall, 303 gastrostomy tubes (pull-type, n=184; push-type, n=119) were included. The most common indications for placement included head and neck carcinoma for push-type tubes (n=76, 63.9%) and cerebral vascular accident for pull-type tubes (n=78, 42.4%).RESULTSIn a multiple regression analysis, there was no statistically significant association between complications and time to feeding (p = 0.096), age (p = 0.758), gender (p = 0.127), indication for tube placement (p = 0.206), or type of tube placed (p = 0.437). Average time to initiation of enteral nutrition was 12.3 hours for the pull-type and 21.7 hours for the push-type cohort (p 0.05).CONCLUSIONThere was no statistically significant correlation between time to feed and complications, suggesting that there is no clinical difference between early and late feeding following gastrostomy tube placement