Pylephlebitis is defined as an inflamed thrombosis of the portal vein. It is a rare complication of an intra-abdominal infection, and the diagnosis is often missed due to its nonspecific clinical presentation. Symptoms may include abdominal pain, fever, chills, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. It is important to consider this differential when a patient presents with signs of abdominal sepsis since it has a high mortality rate and is often diagnosed postmortem. Pylephlebitis can be diagnosed via abdominal ultrasound or CT demonstrating a thrombus in the portal vein, and it must be treated early and aggressively with broad-spectrum antibiotics. We are presenting a case of pylephlebitis as well as discussing the diagnosis and treatment of this potentially lethal condition.
We are here to review the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in the treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (CVT). A search strategy was developed with a research librarian. All published articles including trials, studies, case series, and case reports were reviewed from NCBI/PubMed up to May 2019 by two independent reviewers. A total of 11 studies were identified, which included 70 patients with CVT on DOACs. After 6 months follow-up more than 86.7% of these patients had a good outcome on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) of 0--1 at 6 months and no recurrence of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) at 12 months. Recanalization rate at 6 months varied from 55 to 100%. Only two patients had a side effect of minor bleeding because of DOAC usage. Although the current American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and European Stroke Organization guidelines do not endorse the use of DOACs for treatment of CVT because of lack of evidence from large randomized clinical trials, Use of DOACs in CVT appears to be well tolerated and efficacious with favorable outcomes. Further evidence is needed to establish their use in CVT.
Background: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is the standard of care for acute ischemic stroke caused by large vessel occlusion, but is not available at all stroke centers. Transfers between hospitals lead to treatment delays. Transport directly to a facility capable of MT based on a prehospital stroke severity scale score has been recommended, if transportation time is less than 30 min.Aims: We hypothesized that an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) routing algorithm for stroke, using the Los Angeles Motor Scale (LAMS) in the field, would improve time from last known well to MT, without causing patients to miss the IV Thrombolysis (IVT) window.Methods: An EMS algorithm in the Baltimore metro area using the LAMS was implemented. Patients suspected of having an acute stroke were assessed by EMS using the LAMS. Patients scoring 4 or higher and within 20 h from last known well, were transported directly to a Thrombectomy Center, if transport could be completed within 30 min. The algorithm was evaluated retrospectively with prospectively collected data at the Thrombectomy Centers. The primary outcome variables were proportion of patients with suspected stroke rerouted by EMS, proportion of rerouted ischemic stroke patients receiving MT, time to treatment, and whether the IVT window was missed.Results: A total of 303 patients were rerouted out of 2459 suspected stroke patients over a period of 6 months. Of diverted patients, 47% had acute ischemic stroke. Of these, 48% received an acute stroke treatment: 16.8% IVT, 17.5% MT, and 14% MT+IVT. Thrombectomy occurred 119 min earlier in diverted patients compared to patients transferred from other hospitals (P = 0.006). 55.3% of diverted patients undergoing MT and 38.2% of patients transferred from hospital to hospital were independent at 90 days (modified Rankin score 0–2) (P = 0.148). No patient missed the time window for IVT due to the extra travel time.Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis of prospectively acquired data, implementation of a pre-hospital clinical screening score to detect patients with suspected acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion was feasible. Rerouting patients directly to a Thrombectomy Center, based on the EMS algorithm, led to a shorter time to thrombectomy.
Objective: To analyze and characterize industry payment to vascular neurologists from 2013 to 2018 using open Payments Database. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of open payments database, which is available publicly. We calculated the percentage of vascular neurologists in the United States receiving payments and payment characteristics. We have analyzed the top 1% payment to vascular neurologist with detailed payment category analysis, payment regional trends, and sponsors each year. The number of board-certified vascular neurologists is available from the database of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Results: From Jan 2013 to Dec 2018, industry payments to vascular neurologists have increased significantly each year, while a relatively stable fraction (17%) of US vascular neurologists received industry payments totaling $ 3,782,222 (6 years combined). The median payment per physician ranges from $ 115 to $ 241, while 90th percentile payments vary from $1,766 to $ 4,988 with a maximum payment up to $190,551. Nine payment categories are available and the highest amounts were paid for "Consulting Fee". The payment proportion from top 10 sponsors consists of 75% of the total amount since 2013. The payment to the south region has a steady growth rate among the other regions and has the highest payment amount of $ 470,551 in 2018. Top 1% vascular neurologists received more than 60% of the total payment. Among the top 1% vascular neurologists, 73% are likely to be key leaders in the field. Among the top 1%, 42% are specialized in neuro-intervention and less than 15% have Authored AHA/ASA guideline papers. Conclusion: Payments to vascular neurologists is highly skewed with the top 1% receiving around one-third of all payments, less than 15% of these vascular neurologists have authored AHA/ASA guidelines. The industry is known to target key leaders in the field whether this is translating to changes in clinical practice should be looked into more thoroughly.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.