Such agents have a relatively long-lasting effect (up to 7 min), and can be administered as a single injection or, alternatively, a fractionated injection protocol can be used, depending on the quality of the window. Copyright (c) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.”
“Objective: Recent studies have shown that progressive renal dysfunction may develop in patients after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Data are conflicting about the effect of EVAR on renal function compared with open repair

(OR). The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of EVAR, both with transrenal fixation (TRF) and infrarenal fixation (IRF), vs OR on renal function detected with renal perfusion scintigraphy (RPS).\n\nMethods: A prospective study was carried out from January 2003 to December 2007. Exclusion criteria included factors that could influence CYT387 price post-procedural renal function as: preoperative creatinine clearance level <65 mL/min for men and 60 mL/min for women, renal artery stenosis >60%, renal accessory artery planned to be covered by the endograft, single functioning PRIMA-1MET datasheet kidney, hemodialysis, and kidney transplant. To evaluate renal function, an RPS was performed preoperatively, at 30 days, at 6 and 12 months, and then yearly. The glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was estimated with the Gates method.\n\nResults: During the study period, 403 patients were enrolled;

243 (60%) had OR and 160 (40%) EVAR; among these, 83 (51%) had a TRF and 77 (48%) an IRF; 55 patients were excluded from the study. No statistical differences were observed between groups for demographics and risk factors. Statistically significant differences emerged between OR and EVAR for early postoperative death (4% vs 0%; P = .01). Follow-up ranged from 54 to 126 months (mean, 76 months) for Selisistat order OR and from 54 to 124 months (mean, 74 months) for EVAR (P = NS). Kaplan-Meier analysis survival rate at 9 years was 70% for OR and 58% for EVAR with a risk of secondary procedure of 9% and 34%, respectively (P < .0001). A deterioration of the GFR

was observed during the follow-up in both groups with a decrease after 9 years of 11% in the EVAR group and 3% in the OR group respective to baseline (P < .001). A remarkable difference emerged on renal function between EVAR patients who required a secondary procedure compared with the other EVAR patients (P < .005). No significant differences emerged between TFR and IRF for GFR decline during the follow-up period.\n\nConclusions: After EVAR, there is a continuous decline in renal function with respect to OR, regardless of fixation level and independently of pre-existing renal insufficiency. The risk of GFR impairment after EVAR should be taken into consideration in selecting patients with preoperative renal insufficiency.