Anne C. Roberts

Quality Improvement Guidelines for Percutaneous Management of the Thrombosed or Dysfunctional Dialysis Access

John E. Aruny, MD, Curtis A. Lewis, MD, John F. Cardella, MD, Patricia E. Cole, PhD, MD, Andrew Davis, MD, Alain T. Drooz, MD, Clement J. Grassi, MD, Richard J. Gray, MD, James W. Husted, MD, Michael Todd Jones, MD, Timothy C. McCowan, MD, Steven G. Meranze, MD, A. Van Moore, MD, Calvin D. Neithamer, MD, Steven B. Oglevie, MD, Reed A. Omary, MD, Nilesh H. Patel, MD, Kenneth S. Rholl, MD, Anne C. Roberts, MD, David Sacks, MD, Orestes Sanchez, MD, Mark I. Silverstein, MD, Harjit Singh, MD, Timothy L. Swan, MD, Richard B. Towbin, MD, Scott O. Trerotola, MD, Curtis W. Bakal, MD, MPH, for the Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice Committee

Quality Improvement Guidelines for Percutaneous Permanent Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement for the Prevention of Pulmonary Embolism

PULMONARY embolism (PE) continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Estimates of the incidence of nonfatal PE range from 400,000 to 630,000 cases per year, and 50,000 to 200,000 fatalities per year are directly attributable to PE (1–4). The current preferred treatment for deep venous thrombosis and PE is anticoagulation therapy. However, as many as 20% of these patients will have recurrent PE (1,5,6). Interruption of the inferior vena cava (IVC) for the prevention of PE was first performed in 1893 with use of surgical ligation (7). Over the years, surgical interruption took many forms (ligation, plication, clipping, or stapling) but IVC thrombosis was a frequent complication after these procedures. Endovascular approaches to IVC interruption became a reality in 1967 after the introduction of the Mobin-Uddin filter (8). Many devices have since been developed for endoluminal caval interruption but, currently, there are six devices commercially available in the United States. These devices are designed for permanent placement. For detailed information regarding each of these filters, the reader is referred to several published reviews (9–12). Selection of a device requires knowledge of the clinical settings in which filters are used, evaluation of the clot trapping efficiency of the device, occlusion rate of the IVC and access vein, risk of filter migration, filter embolization, structural integrity of the device, and ease of placement. Percutaneous caval interruption can be performed as an outpatient or inpatient procedure. However, practically speaking, most filter placements will occur in the inpatient population because of ongoing medical therapy for acute thromboembolic disease or underlying illness. The IVC should be assessed with imaging before placement of a filter, and the current preferred imaging method is vena cavography. Before filter selection and placement, the infrarenal IVC length and diameter should be measured, the location and number of renal veins determined, IVC anomalies (eg, duplication) defined, and intrinsic IVC disease such as preexisting thrombus or extrinsic compression excluded. The ideal placement for the prevention of lower extremity and pelvic venous thromboembolism is the infrarenal IVC. The apex or superior aspect of any filtration device should be at or immediately inferior to the level of the renal veins according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. In specific clinical circumstances, other target locations may be appropriate. Percutaneous caval interruption is commonly accomplished through right femoral and right internal jugular vein approaches; however, other peripheral and central venous access sites can be used. Filters can be placed in veins other than the vena cava to prevent thromboembolism. Implant sites have included iliac veins, subclavian veins, superior vena cava, and IVC (suprarenal and infrarenal). This document will provide quality improvement guidelines for filter placement within the inferior vena cava because of the limited data available for implantation sites other than the IVC. The patient’s clinical condition, the type of filter available, the alternative access sites available, and the expertise of the treating physician should always be considered when the decision to place an IVC filter has been made. These guidelines are written to be used in quality improvement programs to assess percutaneous interruption of the IVC to prevent pulmonary embolism. The most important processes of care are (a) patient selecThis article first appeared in J Vasc Interv Radiol 2001; 12:137–141.

Quality improvement guidelines for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts.

Ziv J. Haskal, MD, Louis Martin, MD, John F. Cardella, MD, Patricia E. Cole, PhD, MD, Alain Drooz, MD,Clement J. Grassi, MD, Timothy C. McCowan, MD, Steven G. Meranze, MD, Calvin D. Neithamer, MD,Steven B. Oglevie, MD, Anne C. Roberts, MD, David Sacks, MD, Mark I. Silverstein, MD,Timothy L. Swan, MD, Richard B. Towbin, MD, and Curtis A. Lewis, MD, MBA, for the Society ofInterventional Radiology Standards of Practice Committee

Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous nephrostomy.

The membership of the Society of Cardiovascular & Interventional Radiology (SCVIR) Standards of Practice Committee represents experts in a broad spectrum of interventional procedures from both the private and academic sectors of medicine. Generally, Standards of Practice Committee members dedicate the vast majority of their professional time to performing interventional procedures; as such, they represent a valid, broad expert constituency of the subject matter under consideration for standards production.

Quality Improvement Guidelines for Percutaneous Transcatheter Embolization

Alain T. Drooz, MD, Curtis A. Lewis, MD, Timothy E. Allen, MD, Steven J. Citron, MD, Patricia E. Cole, PhD, MD, Neil J. Freeman, MD, James W. Husted, MD, Patrick C. Malloy, MD, Louis G. Martin, MD, A. Van Moore, MD, Calvin D. Neithamer, MD, Anne C. Roberts, MD, David Sacks, MD, Orestes Sanchez, MD, Anthony C. Venbrux, MD, Curtis W. Bakal, MD, MPH, for the Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice Committee

Pulmonary Embolism from PulseSpray Pharmacomechanical Thrombolysis of Clotted Hemodialysis Grafts: Urokinase versus Heparinized Saline

PURPOSE To compare the frequency and extent of pulmonary embolism (PE) occurring during pulse-spray pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (PSPMT) of clotted hemodialysis grafts with use of either urokinase (UK) or heparinized saline (HS). Postintervention primary patency and complication rates were compared for each method of thrombolysis. METHODS AND MATERIALS Twenty-seven patients were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, double-blind study evaluating PE with two PSPMT agents. The doses of heparin were similar between groups. The only variable was that one group of patients received UK and the other received HS. In two cases, the venous anastomosis could not be crossed. Eleven patients were treated with UK and 14 with HS. Nuclear medicine perfusion lung scans were performed before treatment and after graft declotting procedures. Lung perfusion was quantified to 10% of a pulmonary segment (0 = normal perfusion, 1 = segmental perfusion defect), with nine segments counted for each lung. RESULTS Baseline nuclear medicine perfusion lung scan results were abnormal (> or = 20% segmental perfusion defect) in 19 patients (70.4%). New PE (one or more pulmonary segments) occurred in two patients treated with UK (18.2%) and nine patients treated with HS (64.3%; P = .04). All cases of PE were asymptomatic. Quantitative global pulmonary perfusion analyses revealed that treatment with UK improved flow to 0.2 +/- 2.0 pulmonary segments, whereas treatment with HS decreased perfusion to 1.0 +/- 1.7 segments (P = .16, NS). Although postintervention primary patency rates were similar according to life-table analysis (P = .76, NS), complication rates were higher with use of HS (n = 4, 28.6%) than with use of UK (n = 2, 18.2%) (P = .6, NS). CONCLUSIONS All PE were asymptomatic during PSPMT, but treatment with UK reduced the rate of PE and tended to result in smaller defects in lung scan results. Most patients undergoing hemodialysis have abnormal baseline perfusion scan results, but PSPMT with UK improved many of them. The postintervention primary patency rates were similar between groups, but complications were more frequent after treatment with HS.

Is thrombolysis of occluded popliteal and tibial bypass grafts worthwhile

PURPOSE We analyzed the short- and long-term results for patients undergoing thrombolysis of occluded infrainguinal bypass grafts at our institution over a 62-month period. METHODS Thirty-one patients with 40 episodes of graft thrombosis in 33 grafts managed by thrombolysis were retrospectively reviewed. The effects of graft age, material, and anatomy, symptoms, treatment, anticoagulation, and occlusion duration were evaluated for impact on patency after thrombolysis. Dose and duration of therapy with use of the technique of pulse-spray thrombolysis was assessed. RESULTS Thrombolysis successfully reestablished patency in 92% of grafts treated. Mean lysis time and urokinase dose were 118 minutes and 607,000 units, respectively. Responsible lesions were identified and treated by angioplasty or surgery in 35 of 37 cases. The patency rate after thrombolysis was 28% at 30 months, and the secondary patency rate was 46% at 18 months. Duration of occlusion, symptoms, treatment, graft anatomy, and prior graft revision did not impact on patency. Mean secondary patency was 21.5 months in grafts in place over 1 year and 7.0 months in grafts in place for less than 1 year. Mean secondary patency was 23.8 months in polytetrafluoroethylene grafts and 8.4 months in vein grafts. The limb salvage rate was 84% at 30 months, and the patient survival rate was 84% at 42 months. CONCLUSIONS Pulse-spray thrombolysis is effective in rapidly recanalizing thrombosed infrainguinal grafts. Grafts failing in the first year after placement should generally be replaced, reserving thrombolysis and revision for grafts greater than 1 year old. Vein grafts tolerate thrombosis less well than synthetic conduits and have decreased long-term patency.

IVC Filter Tilt and Asymmetry: Comparison of the Over-the-Wire Stainless-Steel and Titanium Greenfield IVC Filters☆

PURPOSE A comparison of tilting, caval coverage, asymmetry, and insertion problems with the over-the-wire stainless-steel and titanium versions of the Greenfield filter. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study compared 104 stainless-steel and 141 titanium Greenfield inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertions. The angle the sheath and deployed filter made relative to the cava, as well as filter strut distribution, were determined from spot films. The proportionate caval coverage was computed from the cavogram (anteroposterior projection). Mean filter tilts, subgrouped by insertion site, and caval coverage were compared with the Student t test, whereas strut patterns were analyzed with a contingency table. RESULTS The filter caval and sheath caval angles correlated. The filter caval angles varied with insertion site, but were lowest with a right jugular approach. Caval coverage was identical with both designs. The stainless-steel version resulted in a more uniform distribution of struts in comparison with the titanium version. The incidence of insertion problems was not significantly different between the filter types. CONCLUSIONS While IVC filter tilting was not improved with the newer design, the pattern of struts was more uniformly symmetric with the stainless-steel device. The right jugular insertion site was associated with the lowest filter caval angles and the most symmetric pattern of struts.

Quality Improvement Guidelines for Adult Percutaneous Abscess and Fluid Drainage

Curtis W. Bakal, MD, MPH, Chairman, David Sacks, MD, Dana R. Burke, MD, John F. Cardella, MD, Paramjit S. Chopra, MD, Steven L. Dawson, MD, Alain T. Drooz, MD, Neil Freeman, MD, Steven G. Meranze, MD, A. Van Moore, Jr, MD, Aubrey M. Palestrant, MD, Anne C. Roberts, MD, James B. Spies, MD, Eric J. Stein, MD, Richard Towbin, MD, for the Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice Committee

Quality Improvement Guidelines for Percutaneous Management of Acute Limb Ischemia

Dheeraj K. Rajan, MD, FRCPC, Nilesh H. Patel, MD, Karim Valji, MD, John F. Cardella, MD, Curtis Bakal, MD, Daniel Brown, MD, Elias Brountzos, MD, Timothy W.I. Clark, MD, Clement Grassi, MD, MSc, Steven Meranze, MD, Donald Miller, MD, Calvin Neithamer, MD, Kenneth Rholl, MD, Anne Roberts, MD, Marc Schwartzberg, MD, Timothy Swan, MD, Patricia Thorpe, MD, Richard Towbin, MD, and David Sacks, MD, for the CIRSE and SIR Standards of Practice Committees