RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In the Brazilian public health system, conventional surgery is the standard procedure for treatment of varicose veins (VV). We aimed to compare clinical and quality of life (QoL) results of patients subjected to bilateral treatment of VV by a single-procedure or staged-procedure approach. METHODS: A total of 111 patients undergoing bilateral treatment for VV were treated either by a single-surgery or 2 staged procedures (minimal: 30-day interval) depending on institutional protocol. Patients were evaluated with respect to clinical symptoms and quality of life markers before and after treatment, by use of the VEINES-Sym/QoL and EQ5D-5L scores, and these results were then compared between groups. RESULTS: QoL scores improved in general after treatment. VV specific symptoms and QoL aspects improved equally between the Staged-procedure and Single-surgery groups (VEINES-Sym mean variation 29.7 ± 2.1 vs. 29.9 ± 2.7, respectively; P = 0.340 and VEINES-QoL mean variation 5.5 ± 3.4 vs. 4.5 ± 4.3, respectively; P = 0.369). General QoL, however, showed more improvement in the Staged-procedure than the Single-surgery group (EQD5-5L mean increase 0.1678 ± 0.1555 and 0.0785 ± 0.1384, respectively; P = 0.007). When propensity matched, patient subgroups maintained this same differences in QoL results. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the both the Staged- and Single-surgery approach for VV surgical treatment incur similar improvement in disease-specific QoL, and that the Staged-approach may impose less of a burden in the patients' recovery.
Assuntos
Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Qualidade de Vida , Varizes/cirurgia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Vasculares/métodos , Brasil , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos ProspectivosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Iodine contrast medium (ICM) is considered to be gold standard in endovascular procedures, but its nephrotoxicity and hypersensitivity limit the widespread use. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is considered as an alternative for endovascular procedures in patients with contraindication to ICM. However, no studies have compared the outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) performed with ICM or CO2 among patients with no contraindication to ICM. METHODS: From May 2012 to April 2014, 36 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms underwent EVAR in a prospective, randomized, and controlled study. Patients were randomized into 2 groups, CO2 or ICM group. RESULTS: We were able to perform the proposed procedures in all patients in this study. There were no conversions to open surgery and no CO2-related complications. Endovascular material costs, duration of surgery, and time of fluoroscopy were similar between groups, and the cost of the contrast media was smaller in the CO2 group than in the ICM group. Among CO2 group procedures, 62.5% of the patients needed ICM complementary use. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CO2 as a contrast medium for EVAR is an alternative in patients with no restriction for ICM, with similar outcomes when compared to ICM, regarding duration of surgery, duration of fluoroscopy, and endovascular material costs. Using CO2, there were no changes in creatinine clearance and no risk of hypersensitivity reactions; moreover, there was a reduction in contrast-related costs for EVAR procedures. However, in our study, additional use of ICM to visualize the internal iliac artery was needed in most procedures.
Assuntos
Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/cirurgia , Aortografia/métodos , Implante de Prótese Vascular , Dióxido de Carbono/administração & dosagem , Angiografia por Tomografia Computadorizada , Meios de Contraste/administração & dosagem , Procedimentos Endovasculares , Iohexol/administração & dosagem , Radiografia Intervencionista/métodos , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/diagnóstico por imagem , Implante de Prótese Vascular/efeitos adversos , Brasil , Dióxido de Carbono/efeitos adversos , Meios de Contraste/efeitos adversos , Procedimentos Endovasculares/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Iohexol/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Duração da Cirurgia , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Estudos Prospectivos , Radiografia Intervencionista/efeitos adversos , Fatores de Risco , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Iodine contrast medium (ICM) is considered gold standard in endovascular revascularization procedures. However, nephrotoxicity and hypersensitivity to ICM are causes that limit its indiscriminate use. Carbon dioxide (CO2) contrast angiography has been used as an alternative in patients with formal contraindication to ICM. However, no studies to the present date have compared in a randomized and prospective way, outcomes of revascularization procedures performed with either ICM or CO2 in patients eligible for use of both contrasts. METHODS: Between April 2012 and April 2013, 35 patients with peripheral arterial disease with arterial lesions classified as Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus A or B (identified on preoperative angio computed tomography scan) and adequate runoff underwent femoropopliteal revascularization by endovascular technique in a prospective, randomized, and controlled study. Patients were randomized into 2 groups: CO2 group and ICM group, according to the contrast media selected of the procedure. We evaluated the following outcomes in both groups: feasibility of the procedures, complications, surgical outcomes (ankle-brachial index [ABI]), glomerular filtration rate using the Cockcroft-Gault formula, relationship between the volume of injected iodine and postoperative creatinine clearance, quality of the angiographic images obtained with CO2, costs of the endovascular materials, and finally, cost of contrast agents. RESULTS: We were able to perform the proposed procedures in all patients treated in this series (ICM group and CO2). There were no CO2-related complications. No procedures required conversion to open surgery. Clinical results were satisfactory, with regression of ischemia and increased levels of ABI in both groups. Variations in creatinine clearance levels showed a numerical increase in the CO2 group and a decrease in ICM group, however, with no statistically significant difference between the delta clearance in each group. All CO2 arteriograms of the supragenicular arteries were graded as good or fair by both observers with high interobserver image quality concordance. There was no statistical difference between endovascular material costs between the groups, but the contrast cost was significantly lower in CO2 group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of CO2 in patients with no restriction for ICM is an alternative that does not limit the feasibility of the procedures. Similar outcomes were observed with CO2 when compared with the gold standard contrast (ICM) regarding quality of images produced, with no associated changes in creatinine clearance or hypersensitivity reactions and also allows a reduction in contrast-related costs in angioplasty procedures.