Taylor A. Smith

Endovascular treatment of hepatic artery stenosis after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND Hepatic artery stenosis (HAS) after orthotopic liver transplantation is a significant risk factor for subsequent hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT). HAT is associated with a 30%-50% risk of liver failure culminating in retransplantation or death. Traditional treatment of hepatic artery complications has been surgical, with hepatic artery revision or retransplantation. Endovascular therapy of HAS, described primarily in the interventional radiology literature, may provide a less-invasive treatment option. METHODS This was a retrospective review of all endovascular interventions performed for HAS after orthotopic liver transplantation over a 31-month period (August 2009 to January 2012). Patients with duplex ultrasound imaging evidence of severe main HAS (peak systolic velocity of >400 cm/s, resistive index of <.5) underwent endovascular treatment with either primary stent placement or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) alone. Patients were followed with serial ultrasound imaging to assess for treatment success and late restenosis. Reintervention was performed if significant restenosis occurred. RESULTS Thirty-five hepatic artery interventions were performed in 23 patients. Over the 31-month study period, 318 orthotopic liver transplantations were performed, yielding a 7.4% (23/318) rate of hepatic artery intervention. Primary technical success was achieved in 97% (34/35) of cases. Initial treatment was with PTA alone (n = 10) or primary stent placement (n = 13). The initial postintervention ultrasound images revealed improvements in hepatic artery peak systolic velocity (267 ± 118 [posttreatment] vs 489.9 ± 155 cm/s [pretreatment]; P < .0001) and main hepatic artery resistive index (0.61 ± 0.08 [posttreatment] vs 0.41 ± 0.07 [pretreatment]; P < .0001). At a mean follow-up of 8.2 ± 1.8 months (range, 0-29), there were 12 reinterventions in 10 patients for recurrent HAS. Thirty-one percent (n = 4/13) of patients undergoing initial stent placement required reintervention (at 236 ± 124 days of follow-up) compared with 60% (n = 6/10) of patients undergoing initial PTA (at 62.5 ± 44 days of follow-up). Primary patency rates (Kaplan-Meier) after primary stent placement were 92%, 85%, and 69% at 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively, compared with 70%, 60%, and 50% after PTA (P = .17). Primary-assisted patency for the entire cohort was 97% at 6 and 12 months. Major complications were one arterial rupture managed endovascularly and one artery dissection that precipitated HAT and required retransplantation. The overall rate of HAT in the entire cohort was 4.3% (1/23). CONCLUSIONS Endovascular treatment of HAS can be performed with high technical success, excellent primary-assisted patency, and acceptable morbidity. Initial use of a stent may improve primary patency when compared with PTA. The need for reintervention is common, placing particular importance on aggressive surveillance. Longer follow-up and a larger cohort are needed to confirm these encouraging early results.

Carotid endarterectomy is more cost-effective than carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE Cost-effectiveness has become an important end point in comparing therapies that may be considered to have clinical equipoise. While controversial, some feel that recent multicenter randomized controlled trials have codified clinical equipoise between carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS A retrospective analysis of hospital cost and 30-day clinical outcomes was performed on patients undergoing CEA and CAS between January 1, 2008 and September 30, 2010 at a single tertiary referral institution. Cost, not charges, of the index hospitalization was divided into supply, labor, facility, and miscellaneous categories. All costs were normalized to 2010 values. RESULTS A total of 306 patients underwent either CEA (n = 174) or CAS (n = 132). Mean hospital cost for CAS was

Primary stent placement for hepatic artery stenosis after liver transplantation.

9426 ±

Urgent carotid intervention is safe after thrombolysis for minor to moderate acute ischemic stroke

5776 while CEA cost was

Hospital Reimbursement for Carotid Stenting and Endarterectomy

6734 ±

A stroke/vascular neurology service increases the volume of urgent carotid endarterectomies performed in a tertiary referral center.

3935 (P < .0001). This cost differential was driven by the significantly higher direct supply costs for CAS (

Heparin-Bonded Polytetrafluorethylene Does Not Improve Hemodialysis Arteriovenous Graft Function.

5634) vs CEA (

Complications after endovascular treatment of hepatic artery stenosis after liver transplantation

1967) (P ≤ .0001). The higher costs for CAS were seen consistently in symptomatic, asymptomatic, elective, and urgent subgroups. Patients undergoing CAS who were enrolled in a trial or registry (53.8%) incurred significantly less cost (

Transradial approach for percutaneous intervention of malfunctioning arteriovenous accesses.

7779 ±

Endovascular management of inferior vena cava filter perforation.

3525) compared to those who were not (