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.     

超声引导下关节腔内注射重组人Ⅱ型肿瘤坏死因子受体-抗体融合蛋白(益赛普)治疗血友病性关节病

目的 观察超声引导下关节腔内注射重组人Ⅱ型肿瘤坏死因子受体-抗体融合蛋白（益赛普）治疗血友病性关节病（HA）的价值。方法 回顾性分析32例接受超声引导下穿刺关节腔注射益赛普的HA患者，对比观察治疗前及治疗后1个月血友病关节健康评分（HJHS）、视觉模拟评分（VAS），以及超声所示目标关节增生滑膜厚度、血流信号、Melchiorre及中国早期血友病性关节病超声检测（HEAD-US-C）评分，评估其治疗价值。结果 对32例均成功完成超声引导下穿刺关节腔及腔内注射益赛普，共对18例膝关节、7例肘关节及7例踝关节进行治疗。术后未出现感染、出血等并发症。治疗后1个月，目标关节HJHS、VAS、Melchiorre评分、HEAD-US-C评分及增生滑膜最大厚度、平均厚度、血流信号均低于治疗前（P均<0.01）。结论 超声引导下关节腔内注射益赛普治疗HA安全、有效。     

Collar Badge Lens Dose Equivalent Values among United States Physicians Performing Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures

PurposeTo describe the range of occupational badge dose readings and annualized dose records among physicians performing fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) procedures using job title information provided by the same 3 major medical institutions in 2009, 2012, and 2015.Materials and MethodsThe Radiation Safety Office of selected hospitals was contacted to request assistance with identifying physicians in a large commercial dosimetry database. All entries judged to be uninformative of occupational doses to FGI procedure staff were excluded. Monthly and annualized doses were described with univariate statistics and box-and-whisker plots.ResultsThe dosimetry data set of interventional radiology staff contained 169 annual dose records from 77 different physicians and 698 annual dose records from 455 nonphysicians. The median annualized lens dose equivalent values among physicians (11.9 mSv; interquartile range [IQR], 6.9–20.0 mSv) was nearly 3-fold higher than those among nonphysician medical staff assisting with FGI procedures (4.0 mSv; IQR, 1.8–6.7 mSv) (P < .001). During the study period, without eye protection, 25% (23 of 93) of the physician annualized lens dose equivalent values may have exceeded 20 mSv; for nonphysician medical staff, this value may have been exceeded 3.5% (6 of 173) of the time. However, these values did not account for eye protection.ConclusionsThe findings from this study highlight the importance of mitigating occupational dose to the eyes of medical staff, particularly physicians, performing or assisting with FGI procedures. Training on radiation protection principles, the use of personal protective equipment, and patient radiation dose management can all help ensure that the occupational radiation dose is adequately controlled.     

MR-safety in clinical practice at 7T: Evaluation of a multistep screening process in 1819 subjects

IntroductionMR facilities must implement and maintain adequate screening and safety procedures to ensure safety during MR examinations. The aim of this study was to evaluate a multi-step MR safety screening process used at a 7T facility regarding incidence of different types of safety risks detected during the safety procedure.MethodsSubjects scheduled for an MR examination and having entered the 7T facility during 2016–2019 underwent a pre-defined multi-step MR safety screening process. Screening documentation of 1819 included subjects was reviewed, and risks identified during the different screening steps were compiled. These data were also related to documented decisions made by a 7T MR safety committee and reported MR safety incidents.ResultsPassive or active implants (n = 315) were identified in a screening form and/or an additional documented interview in 305 subjects. Additional information not previously self-reported by the subject, regarding implants necessitating safety decisions performed by the staff was revealed in the documented interview in 102 subjects (106 items). In total, the 7T MR safety committee documented a decision in 36 (2%) of the included subjects. All of these subjects were finally cleared for scanning.ConclusionA multi-step screening process allows a thorough MR screening of subjects, avoiding safety incidents. Different steps in the process allow awareness to rise and items to be detected that were missed in earlier steps.Implications for practiceSafety questions posed at a single timepoint during an MR screening process might not reveal all safety risks. Repetition and rephrasing of screening questions leads to increased detection of safety risks. This could be effectively mitigated by a multi-step screening process. A multi-disciplinary safety committee is efficient at short notice responding to unexpected safety issues.     

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.