Eelco C. Brand

Plasma fibrinogen level as a potential predictor of hemorrhagic complications after catheter-directed thrombolysis for peripheral arterial occlusions

Background: The benefit of catheter‐directed thrombolysis for peripheral arterial occlusions is limited by hemorrhagic complications. Plasma fibrinogen level (PFL) has been suggested as a predictor of these hemorrhagic complications, but the accurateness of prediction is unknown. We summarized the available evidence on the predictive value of PFL for hemorrhagic complications after catheter‐directed thrombolysis for acute or subacute peripheral native artery or arterial bypass occlusions. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed and Embase until January 2016 for peer‐reviewed publications on adults undergoing thrombolysis for acute or subacute peripheral native artery or arterial bypass occlusions, assessing the predictive value of PFL for hemorrhagic complications. Two authors independently performed data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed with the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Results: In total, six studies (two randomized clinical trials and four cohort studies) reported on 613 patients undergoing 623 thrombolytic interventions for peripheral native artery or arterial bypass occlusions. No risk estimates for PFL and hemorrhagic complications were reported, two risk estimates were calculated, and nine associations between PFL and hemorrhagic complications were reported. For PFL <100 mg/dL compared with ≥100 mg/dL, the calculated relative risk was 0.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.05‐2.25) for major bleeding and 1.39 (95% confidence interval, 1.06‐1.81) for any bleeding. There were considerable differences in the time point of PFL measurement, the thrombolytic agents, the doses of the agents, and the definition of outcomes. PFL seems inaccurate in predicting hemorrhagic complications. Overall, the included studies were at high risk of bias. Conclusions: Based on the current literature, the predictive value of PFL for predicting hemorrhagic complications after catheter‐directed thrombolysis for acute or subacute peripheral native artery and arterial bypass occlusions is unproven.

Posterior transverse plication of the internal carotid artery to correct for kinking

BACKGROUND The occasional need for shortening of the internal carotid artery (ICA) following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to correct for kinking is still controversial. Although several technical options have been suggested, the impact on perioperative outcome remains unclear, and long-term clinical follow-up is lacking. Shortening by resection has a theoretical risk for a twisted anastomosis and subsequent ICA thrombosis. Posterior transverse plication (PTP) offers an alternative shortening technique without the need for a new anastomosis. We aimed to assess the safety and patency of CEA with concomitant PTP. Secondly, we aimed to provide an overview of different technical modalities for shortening of the carotid artery in current literature. METHODS Within the time frame of 2000 through 2011, 29 patients (mean age, 73.4 years) undergoing CEA with additional PTP of the ICA and standardized patchplasty were retrospectively identified. Patient characteristics, surgical procedural details, and both short- (<30 days) and long- (>30 days) term clinical and duplex ultrasound follow-up were retrieved. Restenosis was defined as ≥50% stenosis on duplex ultrasound. In addition, a literature search was performed on different techniques for ICA shortening. RESULTS Thirty-day outcome revealed no deaths or strokes. No postprocedural thrombosis or narrowing of the ipsilateral ICA was observed. During follow-up (mean, 34.3 months; range, 3-125 months), one patient (4%) died of a noncardiovascular cause. Three patients (11%) developed ipsilateral neurological symptoms (1 stroke, 2 transient ischemic attacks) after 5, 19, and 66 months follow-up, respectively. Of these, two patients (7%) had restenosis at the site of PTP. Asymptomatic restenosis occurred in one other patient (4%) after 16 months. CONCLUSIONS Although the indications for additional shortening procedures following CEA need to be defined, in this small series, PTP as an additional shortening procedure of the ICA following CEA seems feasible and safe with no additional periprocedural risk for narrowing at the plicature or thrombosis of the endarterectomy plane. However, restenosis at the plicature may hamper the long term benefit of carotid reconstruction.

Development and validation of a prediction model for adenoma detection during screening and surveillance colonoscopy with comparison to actual adenoma detection rates

Objective The adenoma detection rate (ADR) varies widely between physicians, possibly due to patient population differences, hampering direct ADR comparison. We developed and validated a prediction model for adenoma detection in an effort to determine if physicians’ ADRs should be adjusted for patient-related factors. Materials and methods Screening and surveillance colonoscopy data from the cross-sectional multicenter cluster-randomized Endoscopic Quality Improvement Program-3 (EQUIP-3) study (NCT02325635) was used. The dataset was split into two cohorts based on center. A prediction model for detection of ≥1 adenoma was developed using multivariable logistic regression and subsequently internally (bootstrap resampling) and geographically validated. We compared predicted to observed ADRs. Results The derivation (5 centers, 35 physicians, overall-ADR: 36%) and validation (4 centers, 31 physicians, overall-ADR: 40%) cohort included respectively 9934 and 10034 patients (both cohorts: 48% male, median age 60 years). Independent predictors for detection of ≥1 adenoma were: age (optimism-corrected odds ratio (OR): 1.02; 95%-confidence interval (CI): 1.02–1.03), male sex (OR: 1.73; 95%-CI: 1.60–1.88), body mass index (OR: 1.02; 95%-CI: 1.01–1.03), American Society of Anesthesiology physical status class (OR class II vs. I: 1.29; 95%-CI: 1.17–1.43, OR class ≥III vs. I: 1.57; 95%-CI: 1.32–1.86), surveillance versus screening (OR: 1.39; 95%-CI: 1.27–1.53), and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (OR: 1.13; 95%-CI: 1.00–1.27). The model’s discriminative ability was modest (C-statistic in the derivation: 0.63 and validation cohort: 0.60). The observed ADR was considerably lower than predicted for 12/66 (18.2%) physicians and 2/9 (22.2%) centers, and considerably higher than predicted for 18/66 (27.3%) physicians and 4/9 (44.4%) centers. Conclusion The substantial variation in ADRs could only partially be explained by patient-related factors. These data suggest that ADR variation could likely also be due to other factors, e.g. physician or technical issues.