Growth in Thoracentesis and Paracentesis Performed by Radiology and Advanced Practice Providers: Medicare Volume and Reimbursement Trends From 2012 to 2018

PurposeTo study trends in volume and reimbursement for paracentesis and thoracentesis by physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) after the introduction of discreet Current Procedural Terminology codes for image guidance.MethodsMedicare claims for 2012 to 2018 (paracentesis) and 2013 to 2018 (thoracentesis) were extracted using Current Procedural Terminology codes for blind and image-guided paracentesis and thoracentesis. Total volumes were analyzed by provider specialty. Nonfacility reimbursement and relative value units were compared.ResultsFor blind paracentesis, volume decreased from 17,393 to 12,226 procedures from 2012 to 2018. Conversely, volume of image-guided paracentesis increased from 171,631 to 253,834 procedures. Radiology performed the majority of image-guide paracentesis (83.9% in 2012 and 77.1% in 2018). Volume and relative share for APPs dramatically increased (from 10.2% to 15.8%). For blind thoracentesis, volume decreased from 26,716 to 15,075 procedures from 2013 to 2018. Conversely, volume of image-guided thoracentesis increased from 187,168 to 222,673 procedures. Radiology performed the majority of image-guided thoracentesis (73.6% in 2013 and 66.2% in 2018). Volume and relative share for APPs dramatically increased (from 7.7% to 12.9%). Although reimbursement for both image-guided paracentesis and thoracentesis decreased, their reimbursement remained higher than that of blind paracentesis and thoracentesis throughout the study period.ConclusionA higher percentage of these procedures are being performed using image guidance; radiologists performed a growing number but declining percentage of image-guided paracentesis and thoracentesis. APPs are playing an increasing role, particularly using image guidance. Given decreasing reimbursement for these procedures, APPs can provide a large cost advantage in procedural radiology practices.     

Assessment of complication rates based on time of feeding initiation in radiologically guided gastrostomy tubes: a retrospective study

PURPOSEWe aimed to assess the association between complication rate and time to feeding in a cohort of patients undergoing radiologically guided placement of gastrostomy tubes.METHODSA retrospective study was conducted of all patients receiving pull-type and push-type gastrostomy tubes placed by interventional radiologists between January 1^st, 2017 and December 31^st, 2018 at a single institution. Primary outcomes included procedural and tube-related complications per medical chart review with a follow-up interval of 30 days. Exclusion criteria were enteral nutrition delayed more than 48 hours, no feeding information, and tubes placed for venting (n=20). Overall, 303 gastrostomy tubes (pull-type, n=184; push-type, n=119) were included. The most common indications for placement included head and neck carcinoma for push-type tubes (n=76, 63.9%) and cerebral vascular accident for pull-type tubes (n=78, 42.4%).RESULTSIn a multiple regression analysis, there was no statistically significant association between complications and time to feeding (p = 0.096), age (p = 0.758), gender (p = 0.127), indication for tube placement (p = 0.206), or type of tube placed (p = 0.437). Average time to initiation of enteral nutrition was 12.3 hours for the pull-type and 21.7 hours for the push-type cohort (p < 0.001). Additional multiple regression analyses of pull-type tubes and push-type tubes separately also did not find any significant association between complications and the above factors (p > 0.05).CONCLUSIONThere was no statistically significant correlation between time to feed and complications, suggesting that there is no clinical difference between early and late feeding following gastrostomy tube placement.

Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy is a well-established safe and effective feeding method (1–5). Early initiation of feeding after tube placement has several benefits, including decreased hospital stay and shorter time on intravenous nutrition, but the theoretical risk of increased complication rate has led many physicians to delay feeding initiation. While several studies have found that early initiation of feeding after tube placement is safe in the endoscopic literature (6–10), the association between time to feed and complications has been less frequently studied in the radiologic literature. Studies that have done so have been limited in the methods of tube placement included, sample size, and types of patients included (11, 12). Furthermore, despite evidence in the endoscopic literature, many physicians do not initiate early feeding after either endoscopic or radiologic gastrostomy placement (13).Within interventional radiology, the time to initiation of enteric feeding is one variable that remains discrepant between institutions and may pose consequence with respect to complications in the early post-placement setting (6–9, 11, 14, 15). Fora of interventional radiologists have demonstrated physicians are using a wide variety of fasting times following tube placement ranging from “early” (commonly less than 6 hours) to “delayed” (commonly 24 hours or greater) that is neither directly based on evidence nor guideline based (16). Furthermore, time to feeding following gastrostomy remains an important clinical metric that may impact initiation of therapy, feeding, and hospital discharge. The purpose of this study was to analyze the rate of feeding related complications in a cohort of all patients undergoing either “push” or “pull” type radiologic gastrostomy placement at a single institution based on time to initiation of feeding following tube placement.     

Initial Experience with Computed Tomography and Fluoroscopically Guided Placement of Push-Type Gastrostomy Tubes Using a Rupture-Free Balloon Catheter

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy placement of push-type gastrostomy tubes using a rupture-free balloon (RFB) catheter under computed tomography (CT) and fluoroscopic guidance. A total of 35 patients (23 men and 12 women; age range 57–93 years [mean 71.7]) underwent percutaneous CT and fluoroscopically guided gastrostomy placement of a push-type gastrostomy tube using an RFB catheter between April 2005 and July 2008. Technical success, procedure duration, and complications were analyzed. Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy placement was considered technically successful in all patients. The median procedure time was 39 ± 13 (SD) min (range 24–78). The average follow-up time interval was 103 days (range 7–812). No major complications related to the procedure were encountered. No tubes failed because of blockage, and neither tube dislodgement nor intraperitoneal leakage occurred during the follow-up period. The investigators conclude that percutaneous CT and fluoroscopically guided gastrostomy placement with push-type tubes using an RFB catheter is a safe and effective means of gastric feeding when performed by radiologists.     

Time-Driven Cost Analysis of Noncuffed Venous Catheter Placement in Infants: Bedside versus IR Suite

PurposeTo compare the direct bundled costs of interventional radiology (IR) suite versus bedside placement of noncuffed central venous catheters in infants.MethodsA single-center retrospective review was performed of all noncuffed upper extremity (peripherally inserted central venous catheter [PICC]) and tunneled femoral (tunneled femoral central venous catheter [TCVC]) catheters placed in infants between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018. Propensity score matching was performed adjusting for age, birth weight, procedure weight, and catheter days. Process maps for each procedure were created based on location and sedation type. Technical success and complications were recorded for each placement. The total direct bundled cost for each catheter placement was calculated by summing the procedure and complication costs.ResultsA total of 142 procedures were performed on 126 matched patients with a technical success of 96% at the bedside and 100% in the IR suite (P = .08). The complication rates did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (P = .51). The total direct bundled costs for catheter placement were $1421.3 ± 2213.2 at the bedside and $2256.8 ± 3264.7 in the IR suite (P = .001).ConclusionsThe bundled cost of bedside femoral catheter placement is significantly less than that of fluoroscopic TCVC and PICC placement performed in the IR suite, mainly related to differences in sedation costs.     

Fluoroscopy-guided jejunal extension tube placement through existing gastrostomy tubes: analysis of 391 procedures

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of fluoroscopically placed jejunal extension tubes (J-arm) in patients with existing gastrostomy tubes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 391 J-arm placements performed in 174 patients. Indications for jejunal nutrition were aspiration risk (35%), pancreatitis (17%), gastroparesis (13%), gastric outlet obstruction (12%), and other (23%). Technical success, complications, malfunctions, and patency were assessed. Percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG) tube location, J-arm course, and fluoroscopy time were correlated with success/failure. Failure was defined as inability to exit the stomach. Procedure-related complications were defined as adverse events related to tube placement occurring within seven days. Tube malfunctions and aspiration events were recorded and assessed.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 91.9% (95% CI, 86.7%–95.2%) of new tubes versus 94.2% (95% CI, 86.7%–95.2%) of replacements (P = 0.373). Periprocedural complications occurred in three patients (0.8%). Malfunctions occurred in 197 patients (50%). Median tube patency was 103 days (95% CI, 71–134 days). No association was found between successful J-arm placement and gastric PEG tube position (P = 0.677), indication for jejunal nutrition (P = 0.349), J-arm trajectory in the stomach and incidence of malfunction (P = 0.365), risk of tube migration and PEG tube position (P = 0.173), or J-arm length (P = 0.987). A fluoroscopy time of 21.3 min was identified as a threshold for failure. Malfunctions occurred more often in tubes replaced after 90 days than in tubes replaced before 90 days (P < 0.001). A total of 42 aspiration events occurred (OR 6.4, P < 0.001, compared with nonmalfunctioning tubes).

CONCLUSION

Fluoroscopy-guided J-arm placement is safe for patients requiring jejunal nutrition. Tubes indwelling for longer than 90 days have higher rates of malfunction and aspiration.Since enteral nutrition is the preferred method of nourishment for all patients with adequate intestinal length and function, a variety of access methods to the gastrointestinal tract has been developed (1). Endoscopy-guided percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are commonly placed in patients in whom oral intake is contraindicated. However, a PEG tube may not be preferred in mechanically ventilated or critically ill patients due to risk of aspiration; in these, administration of the nutrients directly into the jejunum through a nasojejunal tube or a percutaneously placed jejunostomy tube is recommended so that the stomach is bypassed and the risk for aspiration is decreased (2). Other indications for direct administration of nutrients into the jejunum include malfunction of the swallowing mechanism, gastric outlet obstruction, gastroparesis, pancreatitis, and the presence of esophageal fistulas or enteric foregut leaks (3–8).Jejunal feeding tubes can be placed via the nasogastric route, but are not tolerated in the long-term as they can have irritating effects on the nostrils, nasopharynx, and esophagus, and predispose the patient to reflux (9). Hence, a wide variety of other methods for placing jejunal tubes are available, including surgical, fluoroscopy-guided, and endoscopy-guided placement (5). The conversion of an already existing PEG tube into percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy (PEGJ) tube is also available (10, 11). Another method is placement of a jejunal extension tube (J-arm) through a PEG tube; this is most commonly done endoscopically, usually at the same time that the gastrostomy tube is placed, and known as the gastrojejunostomy tube (12). However, endoscopic advancement of jejunal extension tube through a PEG tube can be difficult, particularly when the operator has no access to fluoroscopy to determine its exact position within the bowel (11). Furthermore, the need for jejunal tube feeds can become apparent only after placement of the PEG tube, at which point the patient may return to the endoscopic suite or to the fluoroscopic suite for jejunal extension tube placement.At our institution, placement of a J-arm through an existing PEG tube by the radiologist under fluoroscopic guidance followed by affixation of the tube to the existing PEG tube has been a routine procedure for almost 10 years. The method does not involve removal of the PEG tube, and omits the use of endoscopy, which makes conscious sedation unnecessary and avoids the complications related to endoscopic placement. The purpose of our study was to establish the safety and efficacy of jejunal extension tube placement utilizing only fluoroscopic guidance.     

Gastrostomy Tube Placement Without Nasogastric Tube: A Retrospective Evaluation in 85 Patients

Purpose

Our study evaluated techniques for percutaneous gastrostomy (G)-tube placement without the use of a nasogastric (NG) tube. Instead, direct puncture of a physiologic air bubble or effervescent-enhanced gastric bubble distention was performed in patients with upper digestive tract obstruction (UDTO) or psychological objections to NG tubes.

Materials and Methods

A total of 886 patients underwent G-tube placement in our department during a period of 7?years. We present our series of 85 (9.6%) consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous G-tube placement without use of an NG tube.

Results

Of these 85 patients, fluoroscopic guided access was attempted by direct puncture of a physiologically present gastric air bubble in 24 (28%) cases. Puncture of an effervescent-induced large gastric air bubble was performed in 61 (72%) patients. Altogether, 82 (97%) of 85 G tubes were successfully placed in this fashion. The three failures comprised refusal of effervescent, vomiting of effervescent, and one initial tube misplacement when a deviation from our standard technique occurred.

Conclusion

The described techniques compare favorably with published large series on G-tube placement with an NG tube in place. The techniques are especially suited for patients with UDTO due to head, neck, or esophageal malignancies, but they should be considered as an alternative in all patients. Direct puncture of effervescent-enhanced gastric bubble distention is a safe, patient-friendly and effective technique.     

US-Guided Placement and Tip Position Confirmation for Lower-Extremity Central Venous Access in Neonates and Infants with Comparison versus Conventional Insertion

PurposeTo describe experience with the use of ultrasound (US)–guided placement and tip position confirmation for direct saphenous and single-incision tunneled femoral noncuffed central venous catheters (CVCs) placed in neonates and infants at the bedside.Materials and MethodsA retrospective review of the interventional radiology (IR) database and electronic medical records was performed for 68 neonates and infants who received a CVC at the bedside and for 70 age- and weight-matched patients with CVCs placed in the IR suite between 2007 and 2012. Technical success, complications, and outcomes of CVCs placed at the bedside were compared with those in an age- and weight-matched sample of children with CVCs placed in the IR suite.ResultsA total of 150 primary insertions were performed, with a technical success rate of 100%. Total catheter lives for CVCs placed at the bedside and in the IR suite were 2,030 catheter-days (mean, 27.1 d) and 2,043 catheter-days (mean, 27.2 d), respectively. No significant difference was appreciated between intraprocedural complications, mechanical complications (bedside, 1.53 per 100 catheter-days; IR, 1.76 per 100 catheter-days), or infectious complications (bedside, 0.39 per 100 catheter-days; IR, 0.34 per 100 catheter-days) between groups.ConclusionsUS-guided placement and tip position confirmation of lower-extremity CVCs at bedside for critically ill neonates and infants is a safe and feasible method for central venous access, with similar complications and catheter outcomes in comparison with CVCs placed by using fluoroscopic guidance in the IR suite.     

Replacement of Mushroom Cage Gastrostomy Tube Using a Modified Technique to Allow Percutaneous Replacement with an Endoscopic Tube in Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

Radiologic inserted gastrostomy (RIG) is the preferred method in our institution for enteral feeding in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Skin-level primary-placed mushroom cage gastrostomy tubes become tight with weight gain. We describe a minimally invasive radiologic technique for replacing mushroom gastrostomy tubes with endoscopic mushroom cage tubes in ALS. All patients with ALS who underwent replacement of a RIG tube were included. Patients were selected for a modified replacement when the tube length of the primary placed RIG tube was insufficient to allow like-for-like replacement. Replacement was performed under local anesthetic and fluoroscopic guidance according to a preset technique, with modification of an endoscopic mushroom cage gastrostomy tube to allow percutaneous placement. Assessment of the success, safety, and durability of the modified technique was undertaken. Over a 60-month period, 104 primary placement mushroom cage tubes in ALS were performed. A total of 20 (19.2%) of 104 patients had a replacement tube positioned, 10 (9.6%) of 104 with the modified technique (male n = 4, female n = 6, mean age 65.5 years, range 48–85 years). All tubes were successfully replaced using this modified technique, with two minor complications (superficial wound infection and minor hemorrhage). The mean length of time of tube durability was 158.5 days (range 6–471 days), with all but one patient dying with a functional tube in place. We have devised a modification to allow percutaneous replacement of mushroom cage gastrostomy feeding tubes with minimal compromise to ALS patients. This technique allows tube replacement under local anesthetic, without the need for sedation, an important consideration in ALS.     

Financial Effect of Unbundling Moderate Sedation from Procedural Codes in Radiology

PurposeTo assess and quantify the financial effect of unbundling newly unbundled moderate sedation codes across major payors at an academic radiology practice.Materials and MethodsBilling and reimbursement data for 23 months of unbundled moderate sedation codes were analyzed for reimbursement rates and trends. This included 10,481 and 28,189 units billed and $443,257 and $226,444 total receipts for codes 99152 (initial 15 minutes of moderate sedation) and 99153 (each subsequent 15 minute increment of moderate sedation), respectively. Five index procedures—(i) central venous port placement, (ii) endovascular tumor embolization, (iii) tunneled central venous catheter placement, (iv) percutaneous gastrostomy placement, and (v) percutaneous nephrostomy placement—were identified, and moderate sedation reimbursements for Medicare and the dominant private payor were calculated and compared to pre-bundled reimbursements. Revenue variation models across different patient insurance mixes were then created using averages from 4 common practice settings among radiologists (independent practices, all hospitals, safety-net hospitals, and non-safety-net hospitals).ResultsDepartmental reimbursement for unbundled moderate sedation in FY2018 and FY2019 totaled $669,701.34, with high per-unit variability across payors, especially for code 99153. Across the 5 index procedures, moderate sedation reimbursement decreased 1.3% after unbundling and accounted for 3.9% of procedural revenue from Medicare and increased 11.9% and accounted for 5.5% of procedural revenue from the dominant private payor. Between different patient insurance mix models, estimated reimbursement from moderate sedation varied by as much as 29.9%.ConclusionsDepartmental reimbursement from billing the new unbundled moderate sedation codes was sizable and heterogeneous, highlighting the need for consistent and accurate reporting of moderate sedation. Total collections vary by case mix, patient insurance mix, and negotiated reimbursement rates.     

Prospective Evaluation of Absorbable Gastropexy Anchor Indwelling Time in 33 Patients

PurposeTo evaluate the time to absorbable suture gastropexy anchor release and gastropexy-related complications in patients receiving percutaneous image-guided transabdominal gastrostomy or gastrojejunostomy tube placement.Materials and MethodsThirty-three consecutive patients (16 women; mean age, 63.5 y; range, 25–92 y) undergoing fluoroscopically guided (n = 32) or computed tomography–guided (n = 1) percutaneous transabdominal gastrostomy (n = 26) or gastrojejunostomy (n = 7) were prospectively enrolled in a single-center study. Each patient had three synthetic absorbable suture T-fasteners inserted and were followed until all gastropexy button-locks released naturally, were cut by a health care provider, or were lost to follow-up. Patients or caregivers were contacted weekly to determine timing of gastropexy button-lock release and assess for postprocedural complications.ResultsAll three T-fastener button-type suture locks released naturally in 14 of 33 patients (42.4%) at a median of 29.5 days (mean, 26.7 d; range, 8–40 d). One or more T-fastener sutures were cut in 10 of 33 patients (30.3%), and nine patients (27.3%) were lost to follow-up. Accounting for patient censorship, T-fasteners in all 33 patients remained intact for a median of 35 days. Local infections developed in three patients (9%) on days 22, 25, and 34.ConclusionsRelative to nonabsorbable gastropexy sutures, absorbable suture gastropexy anchors offer the potential to reduce complications associated with long gastropexy indwelling times. However, absorbable gastropexy anchor buttons usually remain intact for longer than 3 weeks after insertion. A postprocedural plan for gastropexy inspection and removal within 3 weeks should continue to be emphasized to avoid local complications, even for absorbable suture kits.     

Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a comparison of indications, complications and outcomes in 370 patients

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous access to the stomach can be achieved by endoscopic or fluoroscopic methods. Our objective was to compare indications, complications, efficacy and outcomes of these two techniques. METHODS: Records of 370 patients with feeding tubes placed either endoscopically by gastroenterology, or fluoroscopically by radiology, at our university-based tertiary care center over a 54-month period were reviewed. RESULTS: 177 gastrostomies were placed endoscopically and 193 fluoroscopically. Nutrition was the most common indication in each group (94 and 92%), but the most common underlying diagnosis was neurologic impairment in the endoscopic group (n=89, 50%) and malignancy in the fluoroscopic group (n=134, 69%) (p<0.001). Complications in the first 30 days were more common with fluoroscopic placement (23% versus 11%, p=0.002), with infection most frequent. Correlates of late complications were inpatient status (OR 0.26, 95%CI: 0.13-0.51) and a diagnosis of malignancy (OR 2.2, 95%CI: 1.03-4.84). Average follow-up time was 108 days in the fluoroscopic group and 174 days in the endoscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: Both endoscopic and fluoroscopic gastrostomy tube placement are safe and effective. Outpatient status was associated with greater early and late complication rates; minor complications such as infection were greater in the fluoroscopic group, while malignancy was associated with late complications.     

Patient Radiation Doses in IR Procedures: The American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry-Fluoroscopy Pilot

PurposeTo update normative data on fluoroscopy dose indices in the United States for the first time since the Radiation Doses in Interventional Radiology study in the late 1990s.Materials and MethodsThe Dose Index Registry-Fluoroscopy pilot study collected data from March 2018 through December 2019, with 50 fluoroscopes from 10 sites submitting data. Primary radiation dose indices including fluoroscopy time (FT), cumulative air kerma (K_a,r), and kerma area product (P_KA) were collected for interventional radiology fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) procedures. Clinical facility procedure names were mapped to the American College of Radiology (ACR) common procedure lexicon. Distribution parameters including the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 95th, and 99th percentiles were computed.ResultsDose indices were collected for 70,377 FGI procedures, with 50,501 ultimately eligible for analysis. Distribution parameters are reported for 100 ACR Common IDs. FT in minutes, K_a,r in mGy, and P_KA in Gy-cm² are reported in this study as (n; median) for select ACR Common IDs: inferior vena cava filter insertion (1,726; FT: 2.9; K_a,r: 55.8; P_KA: 14.19); inferior vena cava filter removal (464; FT: 5.7; K_a,r: 178.6; P_KA: 34.73); nephrostomy placement (2,037; FT: 4.1; K_a,r: 39.2; P_KA: 6.61); percutaneous biliary drainage (952; FT: 12.4; K_a,r: 160.5; P_KA: 21.32); gastrostomy placement (1,643; FT: 3.2; K_a,r: 29.1; P_KA: 7.29); and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement (327; FT: 34.8; K_a,r: 813.0; P_KA: 181.47).ConclusionsThe ACR DIR-Fluoro pilot has provided state-of-the-practice statistics for radiation dose indices from IR FGI procedures. These data can be used to prioritize procedures for radiation optimization, as demonstrated in this work.     

Radiologic peroral gastrostomy.

PURPOSE: To develop an improved percutaneous technique for the insertion of large-bore gastrostomy tubes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With use of fluoroscopic guidance, the stomach is punctured and the esophagus is catheterized in a retrograde fashion. A guide wire is passed from the gastrostomy site, up the esophagus, and out of the patient's mouth. A large-bore (20-24 F) endoscopic push-type gastrostomy tube is advanced over the wire, through the mouth, down the esophagus, and out of the gastrostomy site. RESULTS: Thirty-one successful tube placements were performed in 32 attempts (97% success rate). There were no major procedural or postprocedure complications. Minor complications included one lip laceration (one of 31 = 3%), one minor exit site infection (one of 31 = 3%), and two inadvertent tube dislodgements (two of 31 = 6%). CONCLUSIONS: Radiologic placement of large-bore endoscopic gastrostomy tubes is possible without endoscopy. The procedure is rapid, easy to perform, and safe.     

Complication Rates and Patency of Radiologically Guided Mushroom Gastrostomy,Balloon Gastrostomy,and Gastrojejunostomy: A Review of 250 Procedures

To compare complication rates and tube performance of percutaneous mushroom gastrostomy, balloon gastrostomy, and gastrojejunostomy. Between September 9, 1999 and April 23, 2001, 203 patients underwent 250 radiologically guided percutaneous gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy procedures. Follow-up was conducted through chart reviews and review of our interventional radiology database. Procedural and catheter-related complications were recorded. Chi-square statistical analysis was performed. In patients receiving mushroom-retained gastrostomy catheters (n = 114), the major complication rate was 0.88% (n = 1), the minor complication rate was 5.3% (n = 6), and the tube complication rate was 4.4% (n = 5). In patients receiving balloon-retained gastrostomy tubes (n = 67), the major complication rate was 0, the minor complication rate was 4.5% (n = 3), and the tube complication rate was 34.3% (n = 23). In patients receiving gastrojejunostomy catheters (n = 69), the major complication rate was 1.4% (n = 1), the minor complication rate was 2.9% (n = 2), and the tube complication rate was 34.8% (n = 24). No statistically significant differences were found between procedural or peri-procedural complications among the different types of tubes. Mushroom-retained catheters had significantly fewer tube complications (p < 0.01). Percutaneous gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy have similar procedural and peri-procedural complication rates. Mushroom gastrostomy catheters have fewer tube-related complications compared with balloon gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy catheters. In addition, mushroom-retained catheters exhibit the best overall long-term tube patency and are therefore the gastrostomy catheter of choice.     

Single-Center Experience in Prostate Fiducial Marker Placement: Technique and Midterm Follow-up

PurposeTo describe the technique, technical success, and complications of prostate fiducial marker implantation using transrectal ultrasound (US) guidance in patients undergoing image-guided radiation therapy.Materials and MethodsA retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent fiducial marker placement from January 2010–April 2013. In each case, gold markers were placed in the prostate using transrectal US guidance. Computed tomography (CT) was performed after the procedure and evaluated to confirm correct placement. Technical success, complications, and development of symptoms during radiotherapy were reviewed.ResultsTransrectal US–guided fiducial marker placement was performed on 75 patients (mean age, 62 y; range, 48–79 y) with a mean Gleason score of 7.25 (range, 6–10). Fiducial marker placement was confirmed in the intended location of the prostate or prostate bed for 297 of 300 markers (99%) on follow-up CT imaging. Two markers were placed just outside the prostate capsule, and one marker was lost. Complications included sepsis (n = 1; 1.3%), self-limiting perirectal or intraprostatic hemorrhage (n = 3; 4%), nausea (n = 1; 1.3%), transient hypotension (n = 1; 1.3%), epididymitis (n = 1; 1.3%), and urinary tract infection (n = 1; 1.3%). Complications were seen more frequently in patients with high tumor grade (P = .001) and in patients who developed metastatic disease (P = .01).ConclusionsTransrectal US–guided implantation of fiducial markers is technically feasible, is well tolerated, and has a good safety profile.     

High-Frequency Jet Ventilation under General Anesthesia Facilitates CT-Guided Lung Tumor Thermal Ablation Compared with Normal Respiration under Conscious Analgesic Sedation

PurposeTo determine whether technical difficulty of computed tomography (CT)–guided percutaneous lung tumor thermal ablations is altered with the use of high-frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) under general anesthesia (GA) compared with procedures performed with normal respiration (NR) under conscious sedation (CS).Materials and MethodsThermal ablation treatment sessions performed with NR under CS or HFJV under GA with available anesthesia records and CT fluoroscopic images were retrospectively reviewed; 13 and 33 treatment sessions, respectively, were identified. One anesthesiologist determined the choice of anesthesiologic technique independently. Surrogate measures of procedure technical difficulty—time duration, number of CT fluoroscopic acquisitions, and radiation dose required for applicator placement for each tumor—were compared between anesthesiologic techniques. The anesthesiologist time and complications were also compared. Parametric and nonparametric data were compared by Student independent-samples t test and χ² test, respectively.ResultsPatients treated with HFJV under GA had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classifications (mean, 2.66 vs 2.23; P = .009) and smaller lung tumors (16.09 mm vs 27.38 mm; P = .001). The time duration (220.30 s vs 393.94 s; P = .008), number of CT fluoroscopic acquisitions (10.31 vs 19.13; P = .023), and radiation dose (60.22 mGy·cm vs 127.68 mGy·cm; P = .012) required for applicator placement were significantly lower in treatment sessions performed with HFJV under GA. There was no significant differences in anesthesiologist time (P = .20), rate of pneumothorax (P = .62), or number of pneumothoraces requiring active treatment (P = .19).ConclusionsHFJV under GA appears to reduce technical difficulty of CT-guided percutaneous applicator placement for lung tumor thermal ablations, with similar complication rates compared with treatment sessions performed with NR under CS. The technique is safe and may facilitate treatment of technically challenging tumors.     

Percutaneous nonendoscopic gastrostomy in children

Surgical gastrostomy has long been a standard method of providing nutrition to infants and children. Recently, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy has been advocated as a safer, quicker, less expensive method in children. We report our experience with 16 percutaneous gastrostomies in 14 infants and children; in all cases, both sonographic and fluoroscopic guidance were used. Four patients had had previous surgical gastrostomy in which the tubes could not be replaced once they were removed. The remaining patients were referred for percutaneous placement of gastrostomy tubes as the first procedure. In 13 procedures, parenteral sedation and local anesthesia were used; the remaining three procedures were done with the patient under general anesthesia. Tubes were successfully placed in all procedures. In two patients, tubes became dislodged, necessitating a second procedure. There were no instances of local infections, hemorrhage, or peritonitis, and none of the patients died. Two patients had postprocedure septicemia, which responded to antibiotics. Percutaneous nonendoscopic gastrostomy can be safely and effectively performed in infants and children.     

Role of interventional radiology in the treatment of COVID-19 patients: Early experience from an epicenter

ObjectiveTo highlight the role of interventional radiology (IR) in the treatment of patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsRetrospective review of hospitalized patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and had one or more IR procedures at a tertiary referral hospital in New York City during a 6-week period in April and May of 2020.ResultsOf the 724 patients admitted with COVID-19, 92 (12.7%) underwent 124 interventional radiology procedures (79.8% in IR suite, 20.2% at bedside). The median age of IR patients was 63 years (range 24–86 years); 39.1% were female; 35.9% in the intensive care unit. The most commonly performed IR procedures were central venous catheter placement (31.5%), inferior vena cava filter placement (9.7%), angiography/embolization (4.8%), gastrostomy tube placement (9.7%), image-guided biopsy (10.5%), abscess drainage (9.7%), and cholecystostomy tube placement (6.5%). Thoracentesis/chest tube placement and nephrostomy tube placement were also performed as well as catheter-directed thrombolysis of massive pulmonary embolism and thrombectomy of deep vein thrombosis. General anesthesia (10.5%), monitored anesthesia care (18.5%), moderate sedation (29.8%), or local anesthetic (41.1%) was utilized. There were 3 (2.4%) minor complications (SIR adverse event class B), 1 (0.8%) major complication (class C), and no procedure-related death. With a median follow-up of 4.3 months, 1.1% of patients remain hospitalized, 16.3% died, and 82.6% were discharged.ConclusionInterventional radiology participated in the care of hospitalized COVID-19 patients by performing a wide variety of necessary procedures.     

X-ray checks of NG tube position: a case for guided tube placement

Objectives:Checking nasogastric (NG) tube position by X-ray is too late to prevent 1.5% of blind tube placements entering the lung and results in delays to feeding and drugs. We audit the safety of the tube position and delay incurred by X-ray.Methods:From Radiology reports, we determined whether tube position was safe for feeding, factors associated with an X-ray request and the time delay from X-ray request to that report. For tubes misplaced into the lung, the distance from the carina to tube tip was measured and compared with that from published records of guided tube placement.Results:From 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020, 1934 X-rays were done to check NG tube position in 891 patients. Gastric placement was confirmed in 85% but, because of tube proximity to the oesophagus, only 73% were deemed safe to feed. The 2.2% of tubes reported to be in the lung were a median of 18 cm beyond the carina compared to 12 cm and 0 cm for electromagnetic and direct vision methods of guided placement. X-ray checks delayed feed and drug treatment by >2 h in 51% of placements and 33% of patients required >3 X-rays during their enteral episode.Conclusion:X-ray checks are common and detect a high percentage of unsafe tube placements, leading to repeated X-ray and delayed delivery of drugs and nutrition. Interpretation can be difficult even when following standard national criteria and post-placement X-ray cannot prevent deep lung placement. Guided or combined methods of confirming tube placement should be investigated.Advances in knowledge:Reports included 27.5% of placements as unsafe, 2.2% in the lung at a median depth of 18 cm beyond the carina and too late to prevent 7 pneumothoraces. X-rays were repeated >3 times in 33% of patients over their enteral course and we are associated with clinically significant delays to drug treatment (and nutrition) in 51%; combined methods of tube confirmation or guided placement may be safer and more efficient.     

Interventional Radiologists Achieve Equivalent Outcomes and Lower Costs for Totally Implantable Venous Access Device Placement Compared to Operating Room Placement

PurposeTo compare the cost and outcomes of surgical and interventional radiology (IR) placement of totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) within a large regional health system to determine the service line with better outcomes and lower costs to the health system.Materials and MethodsA retrospective review of all chest port placements performed in the operating room (OR) and IR suite over 12 months was conducted at a large, integrated health system with 6 major hospitals. Secondary electronic health record and cost data were used to identify TIVAD placements, follow-up procedures indicating port malfunction, early adverse events (within 1 month after the surgery), late adverse events (2–12 months after the procedure), and health system cost of TIVAD placement and management.ResultsFor 799 total port placements included in this analysis, the rate of major adverse events was 1.3% and 1.9% for the IR and OR groups, respectively, during the early follow-up (P = .5655) and 4.9% and 2.8% for the IR and OR groups, respectively, during the late follow-up (P = .5437). Malfunction-related follow-up procedure rates were 1.8% and 2.6% for the IR and OR groups, respectively, during the early follow-up (P = .4787) and 12.4% and 10.5% for the IR and OR groups, respectively, during the late follow-up (P = .4354). The mean cost of port placement per patient was $4,509 and $5,247 for the IR and OR groups, respectively. The difference in per-patient cost of port placement was $1,170 greater for the OR group (P = .0074).ConclusionsThe similar rates of adverse events and follow-up procedures and significant differences in insertion cost suggest that IR TIVAD placement may be more cost effective than surgical placement without affecting the quality.