Limits...
Hepatic artery aneurysm repair: a case report.

Jaunoo SS, Tang TY, Uzoigwe C, Walsh SR, Gaunt ME - J Med Case Rep (2009)

Bottom Line: Hepatic artery aneurysms remain a clinically significant entity.Therefore, surgery was delayed for 3 months when aneurysm repair with reconstruction of the hepatic artery was successfully performed.There is no significant difference in cardiac risk in patients who have undergone vascular surgery within 6 months of a myocardial infarction compared with those who have had the operation in the 6 to12 month time frame.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of General Surgery, Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, Mytton Oak Road, Shrewsbury, SY3 8XQ, UK. ssj@doctors.org.uk.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Hepatic artery aneurysms remain a clinically significant entity. Their incidence continues to rise slowly and mortality from spontaneous rupture is high. Repair is recommended in those aneurysms greater than 2 cm in diameter. It is not surprising that vascular comorbidities, such as ischaemic heart disease, are common in surgical patients, particularly those with arterial aneurysms such as these. The decision of when to operate on patients who require urgent surgery despite having recently suffered an acute coronary syndrome remains somewhat of a grey and controversial area. We discuss the role of delayed surgery and postoperative followup of this vascular problem.

Case presentation: A 58-year-old man was admitted with a 5.5 cm hepatic artery aneurysm. The aneurysm was asymptomatic and was an incidental finding as a result of an abdominal computed tomography scan to investigate an episode of haemoptysis (Figure 1). Three weeks prior to admission, the patient had suffered a large inferior myocardial infarction and was treated by thrombolysis and primary coronary angioplasty. Angiographic assessment revealed a large aneurysm of the common hepatic artery involving the origins of the hepatic, gastroduodenal, left and right gastric arteries and the splenic artery (Figures 2 and 3). Endovascular treatment was not considered feasible and immediate surgery was too high-risk in the early post-infarction period. Therefore, surgery was delayed for 3 months when aneurysm repair with reconstruction of the hepatic artery was successfully performed. Graft patency was confirmed with the aid of an abdominal arterial duplex. Plasma levels of conventional liver function enzymes and of alpha-glutathione-S-transferase were within normal limits. This was used to assess the extent of any hepatocellular damage perioperatively. The patient made a good recovery and was well at his routine outpatient check-ups.

Conclusion: There is no significant difference in cardiac risk in patients who have undergone vascular surgery within 6 months of a myocardial infarction compared with those who have had the operation in the 6 to12 month time frame. Use of alpha-glutathione-S-transferase gives an indication of the immediate state of hepatic function and should be used in addition to traditional liver function tests to monitor hepatic function postoperatively.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Angiogram showing the patient's large hepatic artery aneurysm.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2636831&req=5

Figure 2: Angiogram showing the patient's large hepatic artery aneurysm.

Mentions: A 58-year-old man was admitted with a 5.5 cm hepatic artery aneurysm. The aneurysm was asymptomatic and was an incidental finding as a result of an abdominal computed tomography scan to investigate an episode of haemoptysis (Figure 1). Three weeks prior to admission, the patient had suffered a large inferior myocardial infarction and was treated by thrombolysis and primary coronary angioplasty. Angiographic assessment revealed a large aneurysm of the common hepatic artery involving the origins of the hepatic, gastroduodenal, left and right gastric arteries and the splenic artery (Figures 2 and 3). Endovascular treatment was not considered feasible and immediate surgery was too high-risk in the early post-infarction period. Therefore, surgery was delayed for 3 months when aneurysm repair with reconstruction of the hepatic artery was successfully performed. Graft patency was confirmed with the aid of an abdominal arterial duplex. Plasma levels of conventional liver function enzymes and of alpha-glutathione-S-transferase were within normal limits. This was used to assess the extent of any hepatocellular damage perioperatively. The patient made a good recovery and was well at his routine outpatient check-ups.


Hepatic artery aneurysm repair: a case report.

Jaunoo SS, Tang TY, Uzoigwe C, Walsh SR, Gaunt ME - J Med Case Rep (2009)

Angiogram showing the patient's large hepatic artery aneurysm.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2636831&req=5

Figure 2: Angiogram showing the patient's large hepatic artery aneurysm.
Mentions: A 58-year-old man was admitted with a 5.5 cm hepatic artery aneurysm. The aneurysm was asymptomatic and was an incidental finding as a result of an abdominal computed tomography scan to investigate an episode of haemoptysis (Figure 1). Three weeks prior to admission, the patient had suffered a large inferior myocardial infarction and was treated by thrombolysis and primary coronary angioplasty. Angiographic assessment revealed a large aneurysm of the common hepatic artery involving the origins of the hepatic, gastroduodenal, left and right gastric arteries and the splenic artery (Figures 2 and 3). Endovascular treatment was not considered feasible and immediate surgery was too high-risk in the early post-infarction period. Therefore, surgery was delayed for 3 months when aneurysm repair with reconstruction of the hepatic artery was successfully performed. Graft patency was confirmed with the aid of an abdominal arterial duplex. Plasma levels of conventional liver function enzymes and of alpha-glutathione-S-transferase were within normal limits. This was used to assess the extent of any hepatocellular damage perioperatively. The patient made a good recovery and was well at his routine outpatient check-ups.

Bottom Line: Hepatic artery aneurysms remain a clinically significant entity.Therefore, surgery was delayed for 3 months when aneurysm repair with reconstruction of the hepatic artery was successfully performed.There is no significant difference in cardiac risk in patients who have undergone vascular surgery within 6 months of a myocardial infarction compared with those who have had the operation in the 6 to12 month time frame.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of General Surgery, Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, Mytton Oak Road, Shrewsbury, SY3 8XQ, UK. ssj@doctors.org.uk.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Hepatic artery aneurysms remain a clinically significant entity. Their incidence continues to rise slowly and mortality from spontaneous rupture is high. Repair is recommended in those aneurysms greater than 2 cm in diameter. It is not surprising that vascular comorbidities, such as ischaemic heart disease, are common in surgical patients, particularly those with arterial aneurysms such as these. The decision of when to operate on patients who require urgent surgery despite having recently suffered an acute coronary syndrome remains somewhat of a grey and controversial area. We discuss the role of delayed surgery and postoperative followup of this vascular problem.

Case presentation: A 58-year-old man was admitted with a 5.5 cm hepatic artery aneurysm. The aneurysm was asymptomatic and was an incidental finding as a result of an abdominal computed tomography scan to investigate an episode of haemoptysis (Figure 1). Three weeks prior to admission, the patient had suffered a large inferior myocardial infarction and was treated by thrombolysis and primary coronary angioplasty. Angiographic assessment revealed a large aneurysm of the common hepatic artery involving the origins of the hepatic, gastroduodenal, left and right gastric arteries and the splenic artery (Figures 2 and 3). Endovascular treatment was not considered feasible and immediate surgery was too high-risk in the early post-infarction period. Therefore, surgery was delayed for 3 months when aneurysm repair with reconstruction of the hepatic artery was successfully performed. Graft patency was confirmed with the aid of an abdominal arterial duplex. Plasma levels of conventional liver function enzymes and of alpha-glutathione-S-transferase were within normal limits. This was used to assess the extent of any hepatocellular damage perioperatively. The patient made a good recovery and was well at his routine outpatient check-ups.

Conclusion: There is no significant difference in cardiac risk in patients who have undergone vascular surgery within 6 months of a myocardial infarction compared with those who have had the operation in the 6 to12 month time frame. Use of alpha-glutathione-S-transferase gives an indication of the immediate state of hepatic function and should be used in addition to traditional liver function tests to monitor hepatic function postoperatively.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus