Assessing Antibiotic Adherence and Improving Antibiotic Stewardship in Common Interventional Radiology Procedures

PurposeIn 2018, The Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (JVIR) updated its guidelines regarding periprocedural antibiotics. However, some institutions are slower to adopt these new guidelines. Additionally, antibiotic-resistant bacteria and sepsis are serious concerns due in part to incorrect usage of antibiotics. The purpose of this study is to assess institutional adherence to 2018 JVIR guidelines for the purpose of improving antibiotic stewardship.Materials and methodsA total of 800 cases over a 10-month time period were retrospectively identified and charted following the release of guidelines. Inclusion criteria for the study were adults aged 21 years or older undergoing mediport placement, tunneled central line (TCL) placement, nephrostomy tube exchange, percutaneous biliary drain, or cholecystostomy tube exchange. Exclusion criteria included immunocompromised and pregnant individuals as 2018 guidelines may not fit these patient populations. Guideline adherence for each procedure was recorded as a percentage; the timing of the antibiotic usage was also recorded and compared to the guidelines (within 60 minutes before incision).ResultsIn total, 49 mediport placements, 118 tunneled central line placements – 44 hemodialysis (HD) catheters and 74 nonhemodialysis (non-HD) catheters, 100 nephrostomy exchanges, and 82 biliary tube exchanges were included. Antibiotics were used in 83.6% (41/49) of mediport patients, 11.3% (5/44) of non-HD TCL patients, 20.5% (15/74) of HD TCL patients, 55% (55/100) nephrostomy tube changes, and 65.4% (55/84) of biliary or cholecystostomy tube exchanges. Out of those given prophylaxis, guideline-recommended antibiotics were used in 100% (41/41) of mediport, 100% (20/20) of TCL (both HD and non-HD catheters), 9% (5/55) of nephrostomy tube exchanges, and 1.8% (1/55) of biliary tube exchanges. Guideline-recommended timing was followed in 75.3% across all cases (ranging from 72.2% in mediports to 79.3% in biliary exchanges).ConclusionThis study of antibiotic practices at a single university-based academic institution revealed that antibiotic usage is not fully up to date with 2018 guidelines. For mediports, non-HD TCL placements, and nephrostomy tube exchanges, institutional changes should be made to reduce periprocedural antibiotic use, as antibiotics are no longer recommended for these procedures. For HD TCL and biliary exchanges, proper adherence to recommended prophylactic antibiotics should be followed. In addition, education about the correct antibiotic timing should be emphasized to increase compliance with guidelines.     

Minimally Invasive Treatments for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

PurposeTo review and to compare indirectly the outcomes of minimally invasive therapies for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia.Materials and MethodsA literature search via Medline and Cochrane Central databases was completed for randomized control studies published between January 2000 to April 2020 for the following therapies: Rezum, Urolift, Aquablation, and prostatic artery embolization (PAE). Data on the following variables were included: International prostate symptom score (IPSS), maximum urinary flow rate, quality of life, and postvoid residual (PVR). Standard mean differences between treatments were compared through a meta-analysis using transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to assess differences in treatment effect.ResultsThere was no significant difference in outcomes between therapies for IPSS at the 3, 6, and 12-month follow ups. Although outcomes for Rezum were only available out to 3 months, there were no consistently significant differences in outcomes when comparing Aquablation versus PAE versus Rezum. TURP PVR was significantly better than Urolift at 3, 6, and 12 months. No significant differences in minor or major adverse events were noted.ConclusionAlthough significant differences in outcomes were limited, Aquablation and PAE were the most durable at 12 months. PAE has been well studied on multiple randomized control trials with minimal adverse events while Aquablation has limited high quality data and has been associated with bleeding-related complications.     

A Pilot First-in-Human Study of Embrace,a Polyethylene Glycol-Based Liquid Embolic Agent,in the Embolization of Malignant and Benign Hypervascular Tumors

PurposeTo investigate the safety and efficacy of an aqueous polyethylene glycol-based liquid embolic agent, Embrace Hydrogel Embolic System (HES), in the treatment of benign and malignant hypervascular tumors.Materials and MethodsA prospective, single-arm, multicenter study included 8 patients, 5 males and 3 females, with a median age of 58.5 years (30–85 years), who underwent embolization in 8 tumors between October 2019 and May 2020. Technical success was defined as successful delivery of HES to the index vessel, with disappearance of >90% of the targeted vascular enhancement or, for portal vein embolization, occlusion of the portal branches to the liver segments for future resection. The volume of HES administered, ease of use (5 point Likert scale), administration time, and adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Evaluation was performed at 7, 30, and 90 days via clinical assessment and blood testing, and follow-up imaging was performed at 30 days.ResultsEight patients were enrolled, and 10 embolizations were performed in 8 lesions. Tumors included hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 4), renal angiomyolipoma (n = 3), and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (n = 1). Technical success was 100%, and the average ease of use was 3.3 ± 1.0 SD. The HES delivery time was 1–28 minutes (median, 16.5 minutes), and the HES volume injected was 0.4–4.0 mL (median, 1.3 mL). All patients reached 30-day follow-up with imaging, and 6 patients reached 90-day follow-up. There were 3 serious AEs in 2 patients that were unrelated to the embolic agent.ConclusionHES resulted in a 100% embolization technical success rate. The product ease of use was acceptable, and no target vessel recanalization was noted on follow-up imaging at 30 days.     

Thyroid Embolization for Nonsurgical Treatment of Nodular Goiter: A Single-Center Experience in 56 Consecutive Patients

PurposeTo investigate the safety and efficacy of thyroid artery embolization (TAE) in the treatment of nodular goiter (NG).MethodsDuring a 5.5-year period, 56 consecutive patients with a NG underwent TAE. In Group A, there were 20 patients with a solitary/dominant 5–11-cm nodule, and in Group B, there were 36 patients with numerous nodules. Of the 56 patients, 47 (84%) had a retrosternal goiter and 25 had hyperthyroidism. In all patients, clinical and radiological evaluations were made at baseline and 6 months after TAE, and these parameters were statistically compared.ResultsIn 56 patients, 145 of the 146 thyroid arteries were successfully embolized. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.8%. Minor and major complications occurred in 25 and 2 patients, respectively. Six months after the TAE, the mean nodule volume was reduced from 80.2 mL to 25.0 mL, the mean thyroid volume was reduced from 147.0 mL to 62.6 mL, and the mean intrathoracic extension was reduced from 31.7 mm to 15.9 mm (P < .001). Of the 22 patients with non–Graves hyperthyroidism, 19 (86%) became euthyroid. The mean thyroid-related patient-reported outcome scores improved from 155.4 to 70.4 (P < .001). Of the 51 patients, 50 (98%) declared that they would recommend TAE to other patients with NG.ConclusionsTAE is safe and effective for the treatment of NG, with a significant volume reduction of the nodule(s) and thyroid gland.     

La pandemia COVID-19 y su repercusión en la unidad de radiología intervencionista: nuestra experiencia

This paper aims to describe our experience in an interventional radiology unit in a hospital in Spain that was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. To this end, we did a prospective observational study of 20 consecutive patients with COVID-19 who underwent 21 interventional radiology procedures between March 13, 2020 and May 11, 2020. We describe the measures taken to reorganize the work and protective measures, as well as the repercussions of the situation on our unit's overall activity and activity in different phases. The COVID-19 pandemic has represented a challenge in our daily work, but learning from our own experience and the recommendations of the Spanish radiological societies (SERVEI and SERAM) has enabled us to adapt successfully. Our activity dropped only 22% compared to the same period in 2019.     

Reduced nontarget embolization and increased targeted delivery with a reflux-control microcatheter in a swine model

PurposeTo evaluate the potential differences in non-target embolization and vessel microsphere filling of a reflux-control microcatheter (RCM) compared to a standard end-hole microcatheter (SEHM) in a swine model.Materials and methodsRadiopaque microspheres were injected with both RCM and SEHM (2.4-Fr and 2.7-Fr) in the kidneys of a preclinical swine model. Transarterial renal embolization procedures with RCM or SEHM were performed in both kidneys of 14 pigs. Renal arteries were selectively embolized with an automated injection protocol of radio-opaque microspheres. Ex-vivo X-ray microtomography images of the kidneys were utilized to evaluate the embolization by quantification of the deposition of injected microspheres in the target vs. the non-target area of injection. X-ray microtomography images were blindly analyzed by five interventional radiologists. The degree of vessel filling and the non-target embolization were quantified using a scale from 1 to 5 for each parameter. An analysis of variance was used to compare the paired scores.ResultsTotal volumes of radio-opaque microspheres injected were similar for RCM (11.5 ± 3.6 [SD] mL; range: 6–17 mL) and SEHM (10.6 ± 5.2 [SD] mL; range: 4–19 mL) (P = 0.38). The voxels enhanced ratio in the target (T) vs. non-target (NT) areas was greater with RCM (T = 98.3% vs. NT = 1.7%) than with SEHM (T = 89% vs. NT = 11%) but the difference was not significant (P = 0.30). The total score blindly given by the five interventional radiologists was significantly different between RCM (12.3 ± 2.1 [SD]; range: 6–15) and the standard catheter (11.3 ± 2.5 [SD]; range: 4–15) (P = 0.0073), with a significant decrease of non-target embolization for RCM (3.8 ± 1.3 [SD]; range: 3.5–4.2) compared to SEHM (3.2 ± 1.5 [SD]; range: 2.9–3.5) (P = 0.014).ConclusionIn an animal model, RCM microcatheters reduce the risk of non-target embolization from 11% to 1.7%, increasing the delivery of microspheres of 98% to the target vessels, compared to SEHM microcatheters.     

Clinical practice guidelines for the interventional treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer (5th edition)

Pancreatic cancer has become a major disease affecting people's health because of its insidiousness, rapid progression and poor prognosis. Based on the practical needs of clinical work, combined with domestic multi-center research and experience, this guideline provides constructive suggestions for the interventional treatment of pancreatic cancer.