| Literature DB >> 28794797 |
Miklosh Bala1, Jeffry Kashuk2, Ernest E Moore3, Yoram Kluger4, Walter Biffl5, Carlos Augusto Gomes6, Offir Ben-Ishay4, Chen Rubinstein7, Zsolt J Balogh8, Ian Civil9, Federico Coccolini10, Ari Leppaniemi11, Andrew Peitzman12, Luca Ansaloni10, Michael Sugrue13, Massimo Sartelli14, Salomone Di Saverio15, Gustavo P Fraga16, Fausto Catena17.
Abstract
Acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) is typically defined as a group of diseases characterized by an interruption of the blood supply to varying portions of the small intestine, leading to ischemia and secondary inflammatory changes. If untreated, this process will eventuate in life threatening intestinal necrosis. The incidence is low, estimated at 0.09-0.2% of all acute surgical admissions. Therefore, although the entity is an uncommon cause of abdominal pain, diligence is always required because if untreated, mortality has consistently been reported in the range of 50%. Early diagnosis and timely surgical intervention are the cornerstones of modern treatment and are essential to reduce the high mortality associated with this entity. The advent of endovascular approaches in parallel with modern imaging techniques may provide new options. Thus, we believe that a current position paper from World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) is warranted, in order to put forth the most recent and practical recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of AMI. This review will address the concepts of AMI with the aim of focusing on specific areas where early diagnosis and management hold the strongest potential for improving outcomes in this disease process. Some of the key points include the prompt use of CT angiography to establish the diagnosis, evaluation of the potential for revascularization to re-establish blood flow to ischemic bowel, resection of necrotic intestine, and use of damage control techniques when appropriate to allow for re-assessment of bowel viability prior to definitive anastomosis and abdominal closure.Entities:
Keywords: Guidelines; Mesenteric angiography; Mesenteric arterial occlusion; Mesenteric artery stenting; Mesenteric ischemia; Recommendations; Small bowel ischemia
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28794797 PMCID: PMC5545843 DOI: 10.1186/s13017-017-0150-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Emerg Surg ISSN: 1749-7922 Impact factor: 5.469
Grading of recommendations
| Grade of recommendation | Clarity of risk/benefit | Quality of supporting evidence | Implications |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1A | |||
| Strong recommendation, high-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa | RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies | Strong recommendation, applies to most patients in most circumstances without reservation |
| 1B | |||
| Strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa | RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect analyses, or imprecise conclusions) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies | Strong recommendation, applies to most patients in most circumstances without reservation |
| 1C | |||
| Strong recommendation, low-quality or very low-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa | Observational studies or case series | Strong recommendation but subject to change when higher quality evidence becomes available |
| 2A | |||
| Weak recommendation, high-quality evidence | Benefits closely balanced with risks and burden | RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies | Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on the patient, treatment circumstances, or social values |
| 2B | |||
| Weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence | Benefits closely balanced with risks and burden | RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies | Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on the patient, treatment circumstances, or social values |
| 2C | |||
| Weak recommendation, low-quality or very low-quality evidence | Uncertainty in the estimates of benefits, risks, and burden; benefits, risk, and burden may be closely balanced | Observational studies or case series | Very weak recommendation; alternative treatments may be equally reasonable and merit consideration |
Risk factors for specific phenotypes of AMI
| Pathogenesis of AMI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acute mesenteric arterial embolism | Acute mesenteric arterial thrombosis | NOMI | Mesenteric venous thrombosis | |
| Risk factors | Atrial fibrillation Recent MI cardiac thrombi | Diffuse atherosclerotic disease | Cardiac failure | Portal hypertension History of VTE |
AMI acute mesenteric ischemia, NOMI non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia, MI myocardial infarction, VTE venous thromboembolism
Fig. 1Selected image from a CTA scan of a patient with acute mesenteric ischemia secondary to occluded SMA from an embolic source (arrow). 3D reconstruction is demonstrates mid occlusion of SMA (arrow)
Fig. 230-year-old patient with acute superior mesenteric vein a and portal vein thrombosis b due to hypercoagulable state. No signs of bowel ischemia were noted, and the patient was treated successfully with long-term anticoagulation
Fig. 3Patient with acute thrombosis of SMA underwent left ileo–SMA bypass with a common femoral vein graft