Management of hepatic artery aneurysm: A case series

Hepatic artery aneurysms are rare, but their diagnosis is important because of high mortality and complications. Common risk factors for developing these aneurysms include hypertension, vascular disease, pancreatitis, diabetes, tobacco use, autoimmune diseases, and previous transplantation. Frequent imaging for trauma and tumor surveillance has increased the incidence of naive hepatic aneurysms. These aneurysms can be difficult to manage, and it can be challenging to decide the correct treatment modality for the patient. Hereby, we present four cases of hepatic artery aneurysm and discuss various treatment options. Patient 1 suffered from a proper and right hepatic artery aneurysm discovered incidentally; repaired with an endovascular intervention later complicated by an endoleak which was further managed by another stenting. Patient 2 had a common hepatic artery aneurysm followed with serial imaging without any intervention. Patient 3 had a hepatic artery aneurysm and liver mass diagnosed concurrently. The patient underwent an open surgical repair of his aneurysm with graft and liver resection which was complicated later with rupture of aneurysm followed by surgical bypass repair. Patient 4 suffered from a large hepatic artery aneurysm causing bile duct compression. Her aneurysm was repaired open with splenic artery grafting. Patients were managed from careful observation to surgery with different outcomes.

Percutaneous transhepatic vs. endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage for suspected malignant hilar obstruction: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

The optimal approach to the drainage of malignant obstruction at the liver hilum remains uncertain. We aim to compare percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) to endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) as the first intervention in patients with cholestasis due to suspected malignant hilar obstruction (MHO).

Methods

The INTERCPT trial is a multi-center, comparative effectiveness, randomized, superiority trial of PTBD vs. ERC for decompression of suspected MHO. One hundred and eighty-four eligible patients across medical centers in the United States, who provide informed consent, will be randomly assigned in 1:1 fashion via a web-based electronic randomization system to either ERC or PTBD as the initial drainage and, if indicated, diagnostic procedure. All subsequent clinical interventions, including crossover to the alternative procedure, will be dictated by treating physicians per usual clinical care. Enrolled subjects will be assessed for successful biliary drainage (primary outcome measure), adequate tissue diagnosis, adverse events, the need for additional procedures, hospitalizations, and oncological outcomes over a 6-month follow-up period. Subjects, treating clinicians and outcome assessors will not be blinded.

Discussion

The INTERCPT trial is designed to determine whether PTBD or ERC is the better initial approach when managing a patient with suspected MHO, a common clinical dilemma that has never been investigated in a randomized trial.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT03172832. Registered on 1 June 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2473-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A randomized prospective long-term (>1 year) clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation to 980 nm laser ablation of the great saphenous vein

Purpose To compare the short- and long-term (>1 year) efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation (ClosureFAST™) versus endovenous laser ablation (980 nm diode laser) for the treatment of superficial venous insufficiency of the great saphenous vein. Materials and methods Two hundred patients with superficial venous insufficiency of the great saphenous vein were randomized to receive either radiofrequency ablation or endovenous laser ablation (and simultaneous adjunctive therapies for surface varicosities when appropriate). Post-treatment sonographic and clinical assessment was conducted at one week, six weeks, and six months for closure, complications, and patient satisfaction. Clinical assessment of each patient was conducted at one year and then at yearly intervals for patient satisfaction. Results Post-procedure pain ( p < 0.0001) and objective post-procedure bruising ( p = 0.0114) were significantly lower in the radiofrequency ablation group. Improvements in venous clinical severity score were noted through six months in both groups (endovenous laser ablation 6.6 to 1; radiofrequency ablation 6.2 to 1) with no significant difference in venous clinical severity score ( p = 0.4066) or measured adverse effects; 89 endovenous laser ablation and 87 radiofrequency patients were interviewed at least 12 months out with a mean long-term follow-up of 44 and 42 months ( p = 0.1096), respectively. There were four treatment failures in each group, and every case was correctable with further treatment. Overall, there were no significant differences with regard to patient satisfaction between radiofrequency ablation and endovenous laser ablation ( p = 0.3009). There were no cases of deep venous thrombosis in either group at any time during this study. Conclusions Radiofrequency ablation and endovenous laser ablation are highly effective and safe from both anatomic and clinical standpoints over a multi-year period and neither modality achieved superiority over the other.