Ramonell KM, Saunders ND, Sarmiento J, Bercu Z, Martin L, Weber CJ, Sharma J, Patel SG. Avoiding pitfalls in insulinomas by preoperative localization with a dual imaging approach. Am Surg. 2019 Jul 1;85(7):742-746.
Full-text for Emory users.
Timal RJ, et al Effect of No Prehydration vs Sodium Bicarbonate Prehydration Prior to Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in the Prevention of Postcontrast Acute Kidney Injury in Adults With Chronic Kidney Disease: The Kompas Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Feb 17. [Epub ahead of print]
Full-text for Emory users.
RESULTS: Of 554 patients randomized, 523 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median (interquartile range) age was 74 (67-79) years; 336 (64.2%) were men and 187 (35.8%) were women. The mean (SD) relative increase in creatinine level 2 to 5 days after contrast administration compared with baseline was 3.0% (10.5) in the no prehydration group vs 3.5% (10.3) in the prehydration group (mean difference, 0.5; 95% CI, -1.3 to 2.3; P < .001 for noninferiority). Postcontrast acute kidney injury occurred in 11 patients (2.1%), including 7 of 262 (2.7%) in the no prehydration group and 4 of 261 (1.5%) in the prehydration group, which resulted in a relative risk of 1.7 (95% CI, 0.5-5.9; P = .36). None of the patients required dialysis or developed acute heart failure. Subgroup analyses showed no evidence of statistical interactions between treatment arms and predefined subgroups. Mean hydration costs were €119 (US $143.94) per patient in the prehydration group compared with €0 (US $0) in the no prehydration group (P < .001). Other health care costs were similar.
A discussion this week included a diagnostic CTA prior to flourscopic angiography.
Reference: Wells ML, et al. CT for evaluation of acute gastrointestinal bleeding. RadioGraphics. 2018 Jul-Aug;38(4):1089-1107. doi:10.1148/rg.2018170138
Summary: “Teaching point: CT angiography is gaining popularity for use in emergent evaluations of acute GI bleeding. It has potential for use in the first-line evaluation of acute LGIB and the evaluation of UGIB after failed or nondiagnostic endoscopy.”
One discussion this week included the clinical and radiographic signs for operation or nonoperation in the setting of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO).
Reference: Kulvatunyou N, et al. A multi-institution prospective observational study of small bowel obstruction: Clinical and computerized tomography predictors of which patients may require early surgery. The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2015. 79(3);393-398. doi:10.1079/TA.0000000000000759.
Summary: The absence of flatus and the CT finding of free fluid and high-grade obstruction have been identified by Kulvatunyou et al (2015) as predictors that early operative intervention would be beneficial. This prospective observational study involved 200 patients at three academic and tertiary referral medical centers; 148 in the nonoperative group, 52 in the operative group.
Clinical signs: The only clinical sign identified as a predictor for surgical intervention, “no flatus” was listed in 58% of the operative group, 34% of the nonoperative group. Too large to include here, Table 3 in the text (p.397) lists the univariate analysis of all clinical signs.
CT findings: Individual CT signs listed include transition point, free fluid, multiple fluid locations, small bowel fecalization, mesenteric edema, closed loop, and high-grad obstruction. All had low PPVs, ranging 21-41%. Using the three predictors identified, the PPV improved but remained low at 37-56% (p.397).
The table below (p.397) illustrates the utility of the three variables in a few combinations.
In the article, the authors state that they are currently (2015) pursuing a study applying the predictors to a different ASBO patient population so as to cross-validate this predictor model. A search for such a study in the published literature was not successful.
Additional Reading: Catena F, et al. Bologna guidelines for diagnosis and management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO): 2010 evidence-based guidelines of the World Society of Emergency Surgery. World Journal of Emergency Surgery. 2011 Jan 21;6:5. doi: 10.1186/1749-7922-6-5.
Surgical Focus 