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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Abdominal imaging 2021-06, Vol.46 (6), p.2823-2832
Main Authors: Gunn, Andrew J., Raborn, Joel R., Griffin, Russell, Stephens, Shannon W., Richman, Joshua, Jansen, Jan O.
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 &gt; 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 &amp; 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 &gt; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; 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 &gt; 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