Shoaib Shafique

Incidence, risk factors, and treatment patterns for deep venous thrombosis in hospitalized children: An increasing population at risk

OBJECTIVEnThe optimal prophylactic strategy and treatment regimen for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in hospitalized pediatric patients is not clearly established. This study assessed the incidence, risk factors, and treatment patterns for DVT among pediatric patients admitted to a hospital ward.nnnMETHODSnChildren (aged <17 years) admitted to a single tertiary-care hospital during a 14-year period who developed or presented with DVT were retrospectively identified. Patient demographic and clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. Patients who developed DVT in the hospital were stratified according to the Wells clinical probability scoring system from criteria noted before the diagnosis. Treatment patterns and outcomes were evaluated between the two time intervals of 1992 to 2001 (group I) and 2002 to 2005 (group II).nnnRESULTSnBetween 1992 and 2005, 358 children were evaluated for DVT, and 99 (52 boys, 47 girls) were admitted to the hospital and were determined to have DVT by confirmatory imaging. A prior DVT (12 total) was present in eight of the 21 patients admitted for DVT treatment; of the remaining, only seven received DVT prophylaxis on admission. In those developing a DVT, the inpatient clinical probability score was 21% (low), 40% (moderate), and 39% (high). The most common risk factor in those with prehospital DVT was a prior DVT (38%) or thrombophilic condition (33%), whereas inpatients had a central catheter (45%), with nearly 50% in the femoral vein. Children acquiring an inpatient DVT had concomitant severe respiratory (17%), oncologic (14%), and/or infectious (15%) diseases and required a prolonged intensive care unit (12.7 days) stay. Prehospital DVT was lower extremity predominant (90%) and statistically different from inpatient-acquired DVT (62%, P = .01). Treatment patterns between periods I and II revealed a trend to more low-molecular-weight heparin and less unfractionated heparin use (P = .09). Three patients died (one fatal pulmonary embolism). The number of recognized cases per 10,000 admissions increased from 0.3 to 28.8 from 1992 to 2005.nnnCONCLUSIONnThe incidence of DVT in hospitalized children is increasing. Those presenting with DVT typically have prior DVT, thrombophilia, or lower extremity disease. Our study suggests that children admitted with severe medical conditions who require a prolonged intensive care unit stay in addition to central venous access (especially via the femoral vein) should be considered candidates for DVT prophylaxis. A clinical probability scoring system alone cannot stratify patients sufficiently to forgo prophylaxis in hopes of a rapid clinical diagnosis. Childhood-specific level 1 trials aimed at determining guidelines for DVT prophylaxis are urgently required.

Vagus nerve stimulation therapy for treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy and depression.

Vagal nerve stimulation therapy is a new adjunctive treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy and depression. It consists of a pulse generator that transmits impulses to the left vagus nerve via an implantable electrode and can be performed by surgeons familiar with the anatomy of the cervical vagus nerve. The minimum age for vagal nerve stimulation therapy for epilepsy is 12 years, and for depression, 18 years. Hoarseness and cough are the most common side effects. Response rates to vagal nerve stimulation therapy vary and depend on several other factors. If used as adjunctive therapy, vagal nerve stimulation has shown better control of seizures or depression at smaller doses of antiepileptic or antidepressive medications and also results in decreased dose-dependent side effects. Vagal nerve stimulation therapy appears safe as an adjunctive treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy and depression. Long-term data are needed to better define its ultimate role in various subsets of patients.

Femoral Arterial Access Management for Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Evolution and Outcome

Endovascular repair of abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysms (AAAs and TAAs, respectively) has become the standard of care for anatomically appropriate patients. All the devices developed to date for endograft repair of AAAs and TAAs are deployed through relatively large (12F to 24F) sheaths. Traditionally, this access has required arterial exposure with open cut down, but with the development of suture-mediated arterial closure devices and decreasing profile of delivery sheaths of endografts, there is an increasing trend toward percutaneous endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms. This is an effective and safe approach in a select group of patients. Ultrasound guidance ensures that access is obtained proximal to the common femoral artery bifurcation. The procedure should be performed in a sterile operating room environment, and the physicians performing endovascular repair should be experienced in open arterial exposure, should the closure device fail to close the arteriotomy.

Endovascular vs open AAA repair: does size matter?

Since the natural tendency of the aorta is to increase in diameter and tortuosity with age and since abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) increase in diameter and length over time, encroaching on the renal and hypogastric orifices, early repair of AAAs (when =4.0 cm) may allow greater applicability of the endovascular option because of more favorable aortoiliac morphology. Patients who present at an older age with larger AAAs should be more likely to be anatomically excluded from endovascular AAA repair. Over a 42-month period, 317 consecutive patients referred with aortoiliac aneurysms (infrarenal AAA =4.0 cm) were evaluated by one of the authors (SGL) for endovascular vs open repair based on computed tomography (CT) and angiographic imaging. The 10 anatomic exclusion criteria were those applicable to the Zenith ® endograft (Cook, Inc), which currently is the most anatomically inclusive of the aortic endografts in commercial use in the United States. Based on their aortoiliac morphology, 212 patients were excluded from endovascular repair and 105 were included as acceptable anatomic candidates. Age, AAA size, and the reason(s) for exclusion were recorded for each patient. By use of Students t test and logistic and linear regression analyses, the groups were compared by age, AAA size, and age + size. There was no significant difference in patient age or AAA size distribution between the group of patients excluded from endovascular repair based on aortoiliac morphology compared to those who met the inclusion criteria. Patients with small AAAs (4.0–5.4 cm) had similar age distribution as those with large (=5.5 cm) AAAs. The majority of patients (87%) were excluded based on proximal aortic neck morphology. The presence of aortoiliac morphology that precludes endovascular repair is independent of patient age or AAA size at presentation. A patient presenting with a small (4.0–5.4 cm) AAA is not more likely to be a candidate for endovascular repair than a patient with a large AAA.