Loading...
Date of Award
Spring 2020
Degree Name
Master of Medical Science (Physician Assistant)
Department
Physician Assistant; College of Health Sciences
First Advisor
Renee Langstaff
Second Advisor
Michael Huber
Abstract
Acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) continues to be a life-threatening diagnosis with time-sensitivity to intervention. Not only is AMI an infrequent presentation to the emergency room, but the variability in etiology also poses difficulty in diagnosing and choosing a treatment. A classically open approach carries high rates of morbidity and mortality. Within recent decades, different endovascular approaches have been developed, including: combinations of antegrade or retrograde approaches, intra-arterial thrombolysis, and suction embolectomies. Limited studies have been produced and almost no consistency between results and outcomes has been demonstrated. This paper aims to answer: Does an endovascular approach (I) to acute mesenteric ischemia provide better outcomes (O) than an open approach (C) in adults (P)?
Recommended Citation
DeJong, Jessica, "Current Surgical Approaches for Acute Mesenteric Ischemia" (2020). Capstone Showcase. 56.
https://scholarworks.arcadia.edu/showcase/2020/pa/56
Current Surgical Approaches for Acute Mesenteric Ischemia
Acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) continues to be a life-threatening diagnosis with time-sensitivity to intervention. Not only is AMI an infrequent presentation to the emergency room, but the variability in etiology also poses difficulty in diagnosing and choosing a treatment. A classically open approach carries high rates of morbidity and mortality. Within recent decades, different endovascular approaches have been developed, including: combinations of antegrade or retrograde approaches, intra-arterial thrombolysis, and suction embolectomies. Limited studies have been produced and almost no consistency between results and outcomes has been demonstrated. This paper aims to answer: Does an endovascular approach (I) to acute mesenteric ischemia provide better outcomes (O) than an open approach (C) in adults (P)?