Loading…
A pilot randomized controlled trial of endovascular coils and vascular plugs for proximal splenic artery embolization in high-grade splenic trauma
Purpose To evaluate the feasibility of enrolling patients in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing endovascular coils (EC) and vascular plugs (VP) for proximal splenic artery embolization (pSAE) in high-grade splenic trauma, and to collect data to inform the design of a larger clinical effec...
Saved in:
Published in: | Abdominal imaging 2021-06, Vol.46 (6), p.2823-2832 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-89b5597627c42ae46bbbdb9c57937b0e0c0b6c170c538409e197e57e11897d083 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-89b5597627c42ae46bbbdb9c57937b0e0c0b6c170c538409e197e57e11897d083 |
container_end_page | 2832 |
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 2823 |
container_title | Abdominal imaging |
container_volume | 46 |
creator | Gunn, Andrew J. Raborn, Joel R. Griffin, Russell Stephens, Shannon W. Richman, Joshua Jansen, Jan O. |
description | Purpose
To evaluate the feasibility of enrolling patients in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing endovascular coils (EC) and vascular plugs (VP) for proximal splenic artery embolization (pSAE) in high-grade splenic trauma, and to collect data to inform the design of a larger clinical effectiveness trial.
Methods
Single-center, prospective, RCT of patients with Grade III–V splenic injuries selected for nonoperative management. Patients were randomized to pSAE with EC or VP. The main outcome was feasibility. We also evaluated technical success, time to stasis, complications, mortality, and splenectomy rates, by estimating rates and 95% confidence intervals.
Results
46 of 50 eligible patients were enrolled (92%, 95% CI 90–100%). Overall, splenic salvage was 98% (45/46; 95% CI 94–100%). Primary technical success was observed in 22 EC patients (96%; 95% CI 87–100%) and 20 VP patients (87%; 95% CI 73–100%). Bayesian analysis suggests a > 80% probability that primary technical success is higher for EC. Two complications (one major and one minor) occurred in the EC group (9%; CI 0–20%) and one major complication occurred in the VP group (4%; CI 0–13%).
Conclusions
Randomized comparisons of endovascular devices used for pSAE after trauma are feasible. pSAE using either EC or VP results in excellent rates of splenic salvage in trauma patients with high-grade splenic injuries. These high rates of splenic salvage and low rates of complications make their use as a primary outcome in a future trial problematic. Consideration should be given to technical parameters as a primary outcome for future trials. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00261-020-02904-w |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2474845028</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2541127995</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-89b5597627c42ae46bbbdb9c57937b0e0c0b6c170c538409e197e57e11897d083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1rFTEUhoMottT-ARcScONm9CSTj8myFD8KBTcK7kKSOfc2JTO5JjPW9mf4i0176xVcuAg55Dzvm8N5CXnJ4C0D0O8qAFesAw7tGBDdzRNyzHulOgA5PD3U4tsROa31GgCYkoxx-Zwc9X0_KAPqmPw6o7uY8kKLm8c8xTscacjzUnJKrVxKdInmDcXW_eFqWJMrDYip0iagh6ddWreVbnKrSv4Zp6aqu4RzDNSVBcstxcnnFO_cEvNM40yv4vaq2xY34oFcilsn94I827hU8fTxPiFfP7z_cv6pu_z88eL87LILvZZLNxgvpdGK6yC4Q6G896M3QWrTaw8IAbwKTEOQ_SDAIDMapUbGBqNHGPoT8mbv2yb-vmJd7BRrwJTcjHmtlgstBiGB36Ov_0Gv81rmNp3lUrSlamNko_ieCiXXWnBjd6VtotxaBvY-NLsPzbbQ7ENo9qaJXj1ar37C8SD5E1ED-j1QW2veYvn7939sfwPSnqSF</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2541127995</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A pilot randomized controlled trial of endovascular coils and vascular plugs for proximal splenic artery embolization in high-grade splenic trauma</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Gunn, Andrew J. ; Raborn, Joel R. ; Griffin, Russell ; Stephens, Shannon W. ; Richman, Joshua ; Jansen, Jan O.</creator><creatorcontrib>Gunn, Andrew J. ; Raborn, Joel R. ; Griffin, Russell ; Stephens, Shannon W. ; Richman, Joshua ; Jansen, Jan O.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To evaluate the feasibility of enrolling patients in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing endovascular coils (EC) and vascular plugs (VP) for proximal splenic artery embolization (pSAE) in high-grade splenic trauma, and to collect data to inform the design of a larger clinical effectiveness trial.
Methods
Single-center, prospective, RCT of patients with Grade III–V splenic injuries selected for nonoperative management. Patients were randomized to pSAE with EC or VP. The main outcome was feasibility. We also evaluated technical success, time to stasis, complications, mortality, and splenectomy rates, by estimating rates and 95% confidence intervals.
Results
46 of 50 eligible patients were enrolled (92%, 95% CI 90–100%). Overall, splenic salvage was 98% (45/46; 95% CI 94–100%). Primary technical success was observed in 22 EC patients (96%; 95% CI 87–100%) and 20 VP patients (87%; 95% CI 73–100%). Bayesian analysis suggests a > 80% probability that primary technical success is higher for EC. Two complications (one major and one minor) occurred in the EC group (9%; CI 0–20%) and one major complication occurred in the VP group (4%; CI 0–13%).
Conclusions
Randomized comparisons of endovascular devices used for pSAE after trauma are feasible. pSAE using either EC or VP results in excellent rates of splenic salvage in trauma patients with high-grade splenic injuries. These high rates of splenic salvage and low rates of complications make their use as a primary outcome in a future trial problematic. Consideration should be given to technical parameters as a primary outcome for future trials.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2366-004X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2366-0058</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00261-020-02904-w</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33386906</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Bayesian analysis ; Cardiovascular system ; Clinical trials ; Complications ; Confidence intervals ; Embolization ; Feasibility studies ; Gastroenterology ; Hepatology ; Imaging ; Injuries ; Interventional Radiology ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Plugs ; Radiology ; Spleen ; Splenectomy ; Splenic artery ; Statistical analysis ; Success ; Trauma</subject><ispartof>Abdominal imaging, 2021-06, Vol.46 (6), p.2823-2832</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature 2021</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-89b5597627c42ae46bbbdb9c57937b0e0c0b6c170c538409e197e57e11897d083</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-89b5597627c42ae46bbbdb9c57937b0e0c0b6c170c538409e197e57e11897d083</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9081-446X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33386906$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gunn, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raborn, Joel R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Griffin, Russell</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stephens, Shannon W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richman, Joshua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jansen, Jan O.</creatorcontrib><title>A pilot randomized controlled trial of endovascular coils and vascular plugs for proximal splenic artery embolization in high-grade splenic trauma</title><title>Abdominal imaging</title><addtitle>Abdom Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Abdom Radiol (NY)</addtitle><description>Purpose
To evaluate the feasibility of enrolling patients in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing endovascular coils (EC) and vascular plugs (VP) for proximal splenic artery embolization (pSAE) in high-grade splenic trauma, and to collect data to inform the design of a larger clinical effectiveness trial.
Methods
Single-center, prospective, RCT of patients with Grade III–V splenic injuries selected for nonoperative management. Patients were randomized to pSAE with EC or VP. The main outcome was feasibility. We also evaluated technical success, time to stasis, complications, mortality, and splenectomy rates, by estimating rates and 95% confidence intervals.
Results
46 of 50 eligible patients were enrolled (92%, 95% CI 90–100%). Overall, splenic salvage was 98% (45/46; 95% CI 94–100%). Primary technical success was observed in 22 EC patients (96%; 95% CI 87–100%) and 20 VP patients (87%; 95% CI 73–100%). Bayesian analysis suggests a > 80% probability that primary technical success is higher for EC. Two complications (one major and one minor) occurred in the EC group (9%; CI 0–20%) and one major complication occurred in the VP group (4%; CI 0–13%).
Conclusions
Randomized comparisons of endovascular devices used for pSAE after trauma are feasible. pSAE using either EC or VP results in excellent rates of splenic salvage in trauma patients with high-grade splenic injuries. These high rates of splenic salvage and low rates of complications make their use as a primary outcome in a future trial problematic. Consideration should be given to technical parameters as a primary outcome for future trials.</description><subject>Bayesian analysis</subject><subject>Cardiovascular system</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Embolization</subject><subject>Feasibility studies</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Hepatology</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Injuries</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Plugs</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Spleen</subject><subject>Splenectomy</subject><subject>Splenic artery</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Success</subject><subject>Trauma</subject><issn>2366-004X</issn><issn>2366-0058</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kU1rFTEUhoMottT-ARcScONm9CSTj8myFD8KBTcK7kKSOfc2JTO5JjPW9mf4i0176xVcuAg55Dzvm8N5CXnJ4C0D0O8qAFesAw7tGBDdzRNyzHulOgA5PD3U4tsROa31GgCYkoxx-Zwc9X0_KAPqmPw6o7uY8kKLm8c8xTscacjzUnJKrVxKdInmDcXW_eFqWJMrDYip0iagh6ddWreVbnKrSv4Zp6aqu4RzDNSVBcstxcnnFO_cEvNM40yv4vaq2xY34oFcilsn94I827hU8fTxPiFfP7z_cv6pu_z88eL87LILvZZLNxgvpdGK6yC4Q6G896M3QWrTaw8IAbwKTEOQ_SDAIDMapUbGBqNHGPoT8mbv2yb-vmJd7BRrwJTcjHmtlgstBiGB36Ov_0Gv81rmNp3lUrSlamNko_ieCiXXWnBjd6VtotxaBvY-NLsPzbbQ7ENo9qaJXj1ar37C8SD5E1ED-j1QW2veYvn7939sfwPSnqSF</recordid><startdate>20210601</startdate><enddate>20210601</enddate><creator>Gunn, Andrew J.</creator><creator>Raborn, Joel R.</creator><creator>Griffin, Russell</creator><creator>Stephens, Shannon W.</creator><creator>Richman, Joshua</creator><creator>Jansen, Jan O.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9081-446X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210601</creationdate><title>A pilot randomized controlled trial of endovascular coils and vascular plugs for proximal splenic artery embolization in high-grade splenic trauma</title><author>Gunn, Andrew J. ; Raborn, Joel R. ; Griffin, Russell ; Stephens, Shannon W. ; Richman, Joshua ; Jansen, Jan O.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-89b5597627c42ae46bbbdb9c57937b0e0c0b6c170c538409e197e57e11897d083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Bayesian analysis</topic><topic>Cardiovascular system</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Embolization</topic><topic>Feasibility studies</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Hepatology</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Injuries</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Plugs</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Spleen</topic><topic>Splenectomy</topic><topic>Splenic artery</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Success</topic><topic>Trauma</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gunn, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raborn, Joel R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Griffin, Russell</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stephens, Shannon W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richman, Joshua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jansen, Jan O.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database (1962 - current)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Abdominal imaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gunn, Andrew J.</au><au>Raborn, Joel R.</au><au>Griffin, Russell</au><au>Stephens, Shannon W.</au><au>Richman, Joshua</au><au>Jansen, Jan O.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A pilot randomized controlled trial of endovascular coils and vascular plugs for proximal splenic artery embolization in high-grade splenic trauma</atitle><jtitle>Abdominal imaging</jtitle><stitle>Abdom Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Abdom Radiol (NY)</addtitle><date>2021-06-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>2823</spage><epage>2832</epage><pages>2823-2832</pages><issn>2366-004X</issn><eissn>2366-0058</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To evaluate the feasibility of enrolling patients in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing endovascular coils (EC) and vascular plugs (VP) for proximal splenic artery embolization (pSAE) in high-grade splenic trauma, and to collect data to inform the design of a larger clinical effectiveness trial.
Methods
Single-center, prospective, RCT of patients with Grade III–V splenic injuries selected for nonoperative management. Patients were randomized to pSAE with EC or VP. The main outcome was feasibility. We also evaluated technical success, time to stasis, complications, mortality, and splenectomy rates, by estimating rates and 95% confidence intervals.
Results
46 of 50 eligible patients were enrolled (92%, 95% CI 90–100%). Overall, splenic salvage was 98% (45/46; 95% CI 94–100%). Primary technical success was observed in 22 EC patients (96%; 95% CI 87–100%) and 20 VP patients (87%; 95% CI 73–100%). Bayesian analysis suggests a > 80% probability that primary technical success is higher for EC. Two complications (one major and one minor) occurred in the EC group (9%; CI 0–20%) and one major complication occurred in the VP group (4%; CI 0–13%).
Conclusions
Randomized comparisons of endovascular devices used for pSAE after trauma are feasible. pSAE using either EC or VP results in excellent rates of splenic salvage in trauma patients with high-grade splenic injuries. These high rates of splenic salvage and low rates of complications make their use as a primary outcome in a future trial problematic. Consideration should be given to technical parameters as a primary outcome for future trials.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>33386906</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00261-020-02904-w</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9081-446X</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2366-004X |
ispartof | Abdominal imaging, 2021-06, Vol.46 (6), p.2823-2832 |
issn | 2366-004X 2366-0058 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2474845028 |
source | Springer Nature |
subjects | Bayesian analysis Cardiovascular system Clinical trials Complications Confidence intervals Embolization Feasibility studies Gastroenterology Hepatology Imaging Injuries Interventional Radiology Medicine Medicine & Public Health Plugs Radiology Spleen Splenectomy Splenic artery Statistical analysis Success Trauma |
title | A pilot randomized controlled trial of endovascular coils and vascular plugs for proximal splenic artery embolization in high-grade splenic trauma |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T21%3A20%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20pilot%20randomized%20controlled%20trial%20of%20endovascular%20coils%20and%20vascular%20plugs%20for%20proximal%20splenic%20artery%20embolization%20in%20high-grade%20splenic%20trauma&rft.jtitle=Abdominal%20imaging&rft.au=Gunn,%20Andrew%20J.&rft.date=2021-06-01&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=2823&rft.epage=2832&rft.pages=2823-2832&rft.issn=2366-004X&rft.eissn=2366-0058&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00261-020-02904-w&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2541127995%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-89b5597627c42ae46bbbdb9c57937b0e0c0b6c170c538409e197e57e11897d083%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2541127995&rft_id=info:pmid/33386906&rfr_iscdi=true |