Sustainability of Individual EndoAnchor Implants in Therapeutic Use to Treat Type Ia Endoleak After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Purpose: To investigate changes in penetration depths and angles of EndoAnchor implants with initially good penetration after therapeutic use in endovascular aneurysm repair. Materials and Methods: Patients were selected from the Aneurysm Treatment Using the Heli-FX Aortic Securement System Global Registry (ANCHOR; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01534819). Inclusion criteria were (1) EndoAnchor implantation to treat intraoperative or late type Ia endoleak and (2) at least 2 postoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) scans. Exclusion criteria were the use of adjunct procedures. Based on these criteria, 54 patients (44 men) with 360 EndoAnchor implants were eligible for this analysis. Penetration depth of each EndoAnchor implant into the aortic wall was judged as (1) good (2-mm penetration), (2) borderline (</p

Randomized controlled study of pain education in patients receiving radiotherapy for painful bone metastases

BACKGROUND: Although short-course radiotherapy is an effective treatment for patients with painful bone metastases, pain is not always sufficiently controlled. We therefore investigated the additional effect of a nurse-led pain education program on pain control and quality of life (QoL).PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter study, patients with solid tumor bone metastases and a worst pain intensity of ≥5 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) were randomized between care as usual (control-group) and care as usual plus the Pain Education Program (PEP-group). PEP consisted of a structured interview and personalized education with follow-up phone calls. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory, EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and BM22 at week 0, 1, 4, 8 and 12. The primary outcome was pain control, defined as the number of patients whose worst pain intensity was &lt;5 on a 0-10 NRS after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were time to reach control of pain (NRS &lt; 5), mean worst pain and average pain, and QoL at weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12.RESULTS: Of 308 included patients, 182 (92 PEP-group) completed 12 weeks follow-up. At 12 weeks, more patients in the PEP-group (71%) compared to the control-group (52%) reported pain control (P =.008). In the PEP-group, pain control was reached earlier than in the control-group (median 29 days versus 56 days; P =.003). Mean worst and average pain decreased in both groups but decreased more in the PEP-group. QoL did not differ between the groups.CONCLUSION: The addition of PEP to care as usual for patients treated with radiotherapy for painful bone metastases resulted in less pain and faster pain control.</p

Analysis of the position of EndoAnchor implants in therapeutic use during endovascular aneurysm repair

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the penetration depth, angles, distribution, and location of deployment of individual EndoAnchor (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif) implants. Methods: Eighty-six primary and revision arm patients (procedural success, 53; persistent type IA endoleak, 33) treated for type IA endoleaks with a total of 580 EndoAnchor implants from a subset of the Aneurysm Treatment Using the Heli-FX Aortic Securement System Global Registry (ANCHOR) were included in this study. Procedural success was defined as the absence of a type IA endoleak on the first postprocedural computed tomography scan after the EndoAnchor implantation procedure. Endograft malapposition along the circumference was assessed at the first postoperative computed tomography scans and expressed as clock-face range and width in degrees and normalized such that the center was translated to 0 degrees. The position and penetration of each EndoAnchor implant were measured as the clock-face orientation. EndoAnchor implant penetration into the aortic wall was categorized as follows: good penetration, >= 2 mm; borderline penetration, = 2-mm gap between the endograft and aortic wall; or no penetration. The orthogonal and longitudinal angles between the EndoAnchor implant and the interface plane of the aortic wall were determined. Location of deployment was investigated for each EndoAnchor implant and classified as maldeployed when it was above the fabric or in a gap >2mm between the endograft and aortic wall due to >2-mm thrombus or positioning of the EndoAnchor implant below the aortic neck. Results: A total of 170 (29%) EndoAnchor implants had maldeployment and were therefore beyond recommended use and not useful. After EndoAnchor implantation, the procedural success and persistent type IA endoleak groups had 3 (1%) and 4 (2%) EndoAnchor implants positioned above the fabric as well as 60 (18%) and 103 (42%) placed in a gap >2 mm, respectively. The amount of EndoAnchor implants with good, borderline, and no penetration was significantly different between both groups (success vs type IA endoleak) after exclusion of maldeployed EndoAnchor implants (235 [87.4%], 14 [5.2%], and 20 [7.4%] vs 97 [68.8%], 18 [12.8%], and 26 [18.4%], respectively; P 2-mm gaps, EndoAnchor implants alone may not provide the intended sealing, and additional devices should be considered