Purpose: To evaluate the outcomes of endovascular stent-graft repair of major abdominal arteriovenous fistulas. Methods: The English literature was systematically searched using the MEDLINE electronic database up to January 2009. All reports on endovascular stent-graft repair of major abdominal arteriovenous fistula were considered. Our experience of abdominal arteriovenous fistula was involved in the data analysis. The primary outcome measures were technical success and perioperative, 30-day, and overall mortality. Results: Data for the final analysis were extracted from 21 papers reporting on 22 patients and from the medical records of a patient treated at our institution. The most common causal associations of these fistulae were the presence of an aortoiliac aneurysm and previous endovascular aneurysm repair, accounting for 56% and 13% of all associations, respectively. The technical success rate was 96% (22/23). No perioperative or 30-day mortality was noticed during a mean follow-up of 9 months. The most common procedure-related complication was type II endoleak, which was found in 22% (5/23) of the patients. This event was either self limiting or required minimal percutaneous intervention. Conclusion: Endovascular stent-graft repair of major abdominal arteriovenous fistula is a safe and effective treatment option, with good short- and midterm results. However, no long-term data exist, and larger series are required to draw solid conclusions regarding the outcomes of this method.

Background: Blood transfusions are common in cardiac surgery, but have been associated with increased morbidity and long-term mortality. Efforts to reduce blood product use during cardiac surgery include fluid restriction to minimize hemodilution, and protocols to guide transfusion decisions. INVOS is a modality that monitors brain tissue oxygen saturation, and could be useful in guiding decisions to transfuse. However, the role of INVOS (brain tissue oxygen saturation) as part of an algorithm to direct blood transfusions during cardiac surgery has not been evaluated. This study was conducted to investigate the value of INVOS as part of a protocol for blood transfusions during cardiac surgery. Methods: Prospective, randomized, blinded clinical trial, on 150 (75 per group) elective cardiac surgery patients. The study was approved by the Institution Ethics committee and all patients gave written informed consent. Data were initially analyzed based on “intention to treat”, but subsequently were also analyzed “per protocol”. Results: When protocol was strictly followed (“per protocol analysis”), compared to the control group, significantly fewer patients monitored with INVOS received any blood transfusions (46 of 70 patients in INVOS group vs. 55 of 67 patients in the control group, p = 0.029). Similarly, patients monitored with INVOS received significantly fewer units of red blood cell transfusions intraoperatively (0.20 ± 0.50 vs. 0.52 ± 0.88, p = 0.008) and overall during hospital stay (1.31 ± 1.20 vs. 1.82 ± 1.46, p = 0.024). When data from all patients (including patient with protocol violation) were analyzed together (“intention to treat analysis”), the observed reduction of blood transfusions in the INVOS group was still significant (51 of 75 patients transfused in the INVOS group vs. 63 of 75 patients transfused in the control group, p = 0.021), but the overall number of units transfused per patient did not differ significantly between the groups (1.55 ± 1.97 vs. 1.84 ± 1.41, p = 0.288). Conclusions: Our data suggest that INVOS could be a useful tool as part of an algorithm to guide decisions for blood transfusion in cardiac surgery. Additional data from rigorous, well designed studies are needed to further evaluate the role of INVOS in guiding blood transfusions in cardiac surgery, and circumvent the limitations of this study. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00879463

Background: Cardiac surgery is a major consumer of blood products, and hemodilution increases transfusion requirements during cardiac surgery under CPB. As intraoperative parenteral fluids contribute to hemodilution, we evaluated the hypothesis that intraoperative fluid restriction reduces packed red-cell (PRC) use, especially in transfusion-prone adults undergoing elective cardiac surgery. Methods: 192 patients were randomly assigned to restrictive (group A, 100 pts), or liberal (group B, 92 pts) intraoperative intravenous fluid administration. All operations were conducted by the same team (same surgeon and perfusionist). After anesthesia induction, intravenous fluids were turned off in Group A (fluid restriction) patients, who only received fluids if directed by protocol. In contrast, intravenous fluid administration was unrestricted in group B. Transfusion decisions were made by the attending anesthesiologist, based on identical transfusion guidelines for both groups. Results: 137 of 192 patients received 289 PRC units in total. Age, sex, weight, height, BMI, BSA, LVEF, CPB duration and surgery duration did not differ between groups. Fluid balance was less positive in Group A. Fewer group A patients (62/100) required transfusion compared to group B (75/92, p < 0.04). Group A patients received fewer PRC units (113) compared to group B (176; p < 0.0001). Intraoperatively, the number of transfused units and transfused patients was lower in group A (31 u in 19 pts vs. 111 u in 62 pts; p < 0.001). Transfusions in ICU did not differ significantly between groups. Transfused patients had higher age, lower weight, height, BSA and preoperative hematocrit, but no difference in BMI or discharge hematocrit. Group B (p < 0.005) and female gender (p < 0.001) were associated with higher transfusion probability. Logistic regression identified group and preoperative hematocrit as significant predictors of transfusion. Conclusions: Our data suggest that fluid restriction reduces intraoperative PRC transfusions without significantly increasing postoperative transfusions in cardiac surgery; this effect is more pronounced in transfusion-prone patients. Trial registration: NCT00600704, at the United States National Institutes of Health.

We investigated the prevalence of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Primary Care Health Centers (n = 14) in Thessaly (central Greece) recruited 436 participants, mean age 71 (50-79) years. Peripheral arterial disease was considered present if the ankle–brachial index (ABI) was 1.4 in at least 1 leg. Asymptomatic PAD was defined as an abnormal ABI and no symptoms or history of limb revascularization. The prevalence of PAD was 13% (mostly asymptomatic, 11.7%). Only 5 (8.77%) of 57 patients with PAD were aware of their disease and only in these patients were the physicians aware of the presence of PAD. The risk factors associated with PAD were age, smoking, and the combination of diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease. All symptomatic patients were on antiplatelet therapy but 33% did not take statins. For asymptomatic patients, 74.5% were not on antiplatelet therapy and 57% did not receive statins. In the primary health care setting, PAD is underdiagnosed and undertreated.