-
International Journal of Cardiology.... Feb 2023The scope of this systematic review is to update the existing body of evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, stratified... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The scope of this systematic review is to update the existing body of evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, stratified across all risk categories, and to assess their methodological quality.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed including published cost-effectiveness analyses of heart valve implantations. The quality was assessed with the Quality of Health Economics Tool.
RESULTS
We identified 33 economic evaluations of transcatheter aortic heart valve implantations. Results were not consistent, ranging from dominant to dominating. Moreover, the models were sensitive to an array of variables. The methodological quality of the studies was good.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review led to inconclusive and inconsistent results pertinent to the economic profile of TAVI technology. It also highlighted areas which merit further research regarding the pillars of cost-effectiveness analysis such as modeling, the extrapolation of available data and the uncertainty of the evidence. A thorough assessment of the patient should proceed any decision-making.
PubMed: 36747880
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2023.101173 -
BMC Public Health Apr 2015Cigars are a growing public health concern, given the changes in cigar use patterns in the US and elsewhere since the 1960s. We conducted a systematic review of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cigars are a growing public health concern, given the changes in cigar use patterns in the US and elsewhere since the 1960s. We conducted a systematic review of published studies on current cigar smoking and all-cause and cause-specific mortality risks to inform potential regulatory approaches and future research that would strengthen the body of evidence.
METHODS
Using 3 different databases and handsearching, we identified epidemiological studies published prior to June 2014 that examined the association between cigar smoking and all-cause mortality and smoking-related mortality. Detailed study characteristics as well as association-level characteristics, including effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals, were abstracted or calculated from each selected study.
RESULTS
A total of 22 studies from 16 different prospective cohorts were identified. Primary cigar smoking (current, exclusive cigar smoking with no history of previous cigarette or pipe smoking) was associated with all cause-mortality, oral cancer, esophageal cancer, pancreatic cancer, laryngeal cancer, lung cancer, coronary heart disease (CHD), and aortic aneurysm. Strong dose trends by cigars per day and inhalation level for primary cigar smoking were observed for oral, esophageal, laryngeal, and lung cancers. Among primary cigar smokers reporting no inhalation, relative mortality risk was still highly elevated for oral, esophageal, and laryngeal cancers.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, cigar smoking carries many of the same health risks as cigarette smoking. Mortality risks from cigar smoking vary by level of exposure as measured by cigars per day and inhalation level and can be as high as or exceed those of cigarette smoking. The body of evidence would be strengthened by future studies that focus on the health effects of primary cigar smoking and incorporate more contemporary and diverse study populations to better reflect the current patterns of cigar use in the US. Ideally, these studies would also collect detailed information on cigar type, exposure level, and biomarkers of exposure and potential harm.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm; Coronary Disease; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Risk; Smoking; Tobacco Products
PubMed: 25907101
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-1617-5 -
Folia Morphologica 2021The aim of this study is to present the level of aortic bifurcation in a sample of Greek origin (case series) and to perform an up-to-date systematic review in the...
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study is to present the level of aortic bifurcation in a sample of Greek origin (case series) and to perform an up-to-date systematic review in the existing literature.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Seventy-six formalin-fixed adult cadavers were dissected and studied in order to research the level of aortic bifurcation. Additionally, PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for eligible articles concerning the level of aortic bifurcation for the period up to February 2020.
RESULTS
The mean level of aortic bifurcation according to our case series was the lower third of the L4 vertebral body (21/76, 27.6%). The level of aortic bifurcation ranged between the lower third of the L3 vertebral body and the lower third of the L5 body. No statistically significant correlation was found between the two sexes. The systematic review of the literature revealed 31 articles which were considered eligible and a total number of 3537 specimens were retracted. According to the recorded findings the most common mean level of aortic bifurcation was the body of L4 vertebra (1495/3537 cases, 42.2%), while the range of aortic bifurcation was described to occur from upper third of L3 vertebrae to the upper third of the S1 vertebrae in the 52.8% of the cases (1866/3537).
CONCLUSIONS
The mean level of AA corresponds to the body of L4 and presents a great range (form L3U to S1U). Knowledge of the mean level of aortic bifurcation and its probable ranges is of great significance for interventional radiologists and especially vascular surgeons that deal with aneurism proximal to the aortic bifurcation.
Topics: Adult; Aorta, Abdominal; Cadaver; Greece; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Sacrum
PubMed: 32488853
DOI: 10.5603/FM.a2020.0064 -
The British Journal of Nutrition Mar 2024Phytosterols/phytostanols are bioactive compounds found in vegetable oils, nuts and seeds and added to a range of commercial food products. Consumption of... (Review)
Review
Phytosterols/phytostanols are bioactive compounds found in vegetable oils, nuts and seeds and added to a range of commercial food products. Consumption of phytosterols/phytostanols reduces levels of circulating LDL-cholesterol, a causative biomarker of CVD, and is linked to a reduced risk of some cancers. Individuals who consume phytosterols/phytostanols in their diet may do so for many years as part of a non-pharmacological route to lower cholesterol or as part of a healthy diet. However, the impact of long term or high intakes of dietary phytosterols/phytostanols has not been on whole-body epigenetic changes before. The aim of this systematic review was to identify all publications that have evaluated changes to epigenetic mechanisms (post-translation modification of histones, DNA methylation and miRNA expression) in response to phytosterols/phytostanols. A systematic search was performed that returned 226 records, of which eleven were eligible for full-text analysis. Multiple phytosterols were found to inhibit expression of histone deacetylase (HDAC) enzymes and were also predicted to directly bind and impair HDAC activity. Phytosterols were found to inhibit the expression and activity of DNA methyl transferase enzyme 1 and reverse cancer-associated gene silencing. Finally, phytosterols have been shown to regulate over 200 miRNA, although only five of these were reported in multiple publications. Five tissue types (breast, prostate, macrophage, aortic epithelia and lung) were represented across the studies, and although phytosterols/phytostanols alter the molecular mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance in these mammalian cells, studies exploring meiotic or transgenerational inheritance were not found.
Topics: Male; Animals; Humans; Phytosterols; Noncommunicable Diseases; Cholesterol; Epigenesis, Genetic; Neoplasms; MicroRNAs; Mammals
PubMed: 37955052
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114523002532 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015People with the cardiac arrhythmia supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) frequently present to clinicians in the prehospital and emergency medicine settings. Restoring... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People with the cardiac arrhythmia supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) frequently present to clinicians in the prehospital and emergency medicine settings. Restoring sinus rhythm by terminating the SVT involves increasing the refractoriness of atrioventricular nodal tissue within the myocardium by means of vagal manoeuvres, pharmacological agents, or electrical cardioversion. A commonly used first-line technique to restore the normal sinus rhythm (reversion) is the Valsalva Manoeuvre (VM). This is a non-invasive means of increasing myocardial refractoriness by increasing intrathoracic pressure for a brief period, thus stimulating baroreceptor activity in the aortic arch and carotid bodies, resulting in increased parasympathetic (vagus nerve) tone.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence of effectiveness of the VM in terminating SVT.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated the electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 7); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to August week 3, 2014); EMBASE Classic and EMBASE Ovid (1947 to 27 August 2014); Web of Science (1970 to 27 August 2014); and BIOSIS Previews (1969 to 22 August 2014). We also checked trials registries, the Index to Theses, and the bibliographies of all relevant publications identified by these strategies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of VM in terminating SVT.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted the data using a standardised form. We assessed each trial for internal validity, resolving any differences by discussion. We then extracted and entered data into Review Manager 5.
MAIN RESULTS
In this update, we did not identify any new RCT studies for inclusion. We identified two RCT studies as ongoing that we are likely to include in future updates. Accordingly, our results are unchanged and include three RCTs with a total of 316 participants. All three studies compared the effectiveness of VM in reverting SVT with that of other vagal manoeuvres in a cross-over design. Two studies induced SVT within a controlled laboratory environment. Participants had ceased all medications prior to engaging in these studies. The third study reported on people presenting to a hospital emergency department with an episode of SVT. These participants were not controlled for medications or other factors prior to intervention.The two laboratory studies demonstrated reversion rates of 45.9% and 54.3%, whilst the clinical study demonstrated reversion success of 19.4%. This discrepancy may be due to methodological differences between studies, the effect of induced SVT versus spontaneous episodic SVT, and participant factors such as medications and comorbidities. We were unable to assess any of these factors, or adverse effects, further, since they were either not described in enough detail or not reported at all.Statistical pooling was not possible due to heterogeneity between the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not find sufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of VM for termination of SVT. Further research is needed, and this research should include a standardised approach to performance technique and methodology.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tachycardia, Supraventricular; Treatment Outcome; Valsalva Maneuver
PubMed: 25922864
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009502.pub3 -
EuroIntervention : Journal of EuroPCR... Oct 2015Stent placement as treatment for coarctation of the aorta (CoA) has become a more common choice in the last 20 years. Clinical results of CoA stenting are usually... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
Stent placement as treatment for coarctation of the aorta (CoA) has become a more common choice in the last 20 years. Clinical results of CoA stenting are usually reported in small retrospective case series. This systematic review provides an overview of clinical experience with stenting for CoA.
METHODS AND RESULTS
A systematic review of the reports published between January 1990 and December 2014 after stenting a CoA was performed with a focus on relief of obstruction and lowering of blood pressure. Study and patient characteristics were extracted, as well as pre- and post-stenting aortic diameter in mm, systolic pressure gradient (SPG) and pre- and post-stenting systolic blood pressure (mmHg), periprocedural and follow-up complications. Forty-five articles met the inclusion criteria. Three outcomes were extracted from the articles - aortic diameter, systolic pressure gradient and blood pressure. Diameter increased from 6.4 mm (5.6, 7.3) to 15.1 mm (14.5, 15.7), pressure gradients decreased from 40 mmHg (35, 42) to 4 mmHg (3, 5) and systolic blood pressure decreased from 153 mmHg (148, 158) to 132 mmHg (127, 136). Stent migration was the most common periprocedural complication (2.4%), and mortality was low (0.4%).
CONCLUSIONS
Stenting is an effective treatment with regard to immediate relief of obstruction and direct lowering effect on blood pressure. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding late effectiveness concerning durable blood pressure lowering, and limited information on periprocedural and late complications. This observation calls for a systematic and longer prospective follow-up of patients after CoA stenting.
Topics: Aortic Coarctation; Arterial Pressure; Endovascular Procedures; Foreign-Body Migration; Humans; Risk Factors; Stents; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26499220
DOI: 10.4244/EIJV11I6A133 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Apr 2022We sought to evaluate the impact of obesity on perioperative mortality and complication rates in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and open surgical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
We sought to evaluate the impact of obesity on perioperative mortality and complication rates in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms.
METHODS
A systematic review of all studies reporting abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment perioperative (30-day) outcomes in obese patients (body mass index ≥30 kg/m). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiac complications, respiratory complications, wound complication, renal complications, and neurological complications at 30 days. These outcomes were pooled for meta-analysis. Analysis first compared obese vs nonobese patients undergoing EVAR and OSR then compared EVAR with OSR in obese patients.
RESULTS
We identified seven observational studies with 14,971 patients (11,743 EVAR, 3228 OSR). Obese patients undergoing EVAR had lower 30-day mortality (1.5%) compared with nonobese patients (2.2%) (odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.96; P = .03; I = 0%; Grade of evidence: low). In OSR, obese patients (5.0%) had similar 30-day mortality to nonobese patients (5.7%) (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.70-1.20; P = .54; I = 0%; Grade of evidence: low). Wound complications were higher in obese patients undergoing OSR (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.74-3.06; P < .001; I = 0%; Grade of evidence: low). EVAR was associated with a lower 30-day mortality (1.5%) compared with OSR (5.0%) in obese patients (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.12-0.46; P < .001; I = 38%; Grade of evidence: low). Cardiac, respiratory, wound, renal, and neurological complications were also reduced in EVAR.
CONCLUSIONS
Obese patients have lower 30-day mortality in EVAR compared with nonobese patients. In OSR, obese patients had similar 30-day mortality but higher wound complications compared with nonobese patients. Obese patients otherwise have similar cardiopulmonary complication rates compared with nonobese patients in both EVAR and OSR. EVAR offers lower 30-day mortality and morbidity compared with OSR in obese patients. This study suggests that EVAR is superior to OSR in obese patients.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Obesity; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34785300
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.10.053 -
Heart (British Cardiac Society) Aug 2021The review aims to summarise evidence addressing patients' values, preferences and practical issues on deciding between transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) and...
The review aims to summarise evidence addressing patients' values, preferences and practical issues on deciding between transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis. We searched databases and grey literature until June 2020. We included studies of adults with aortic stenosis eliciting values and preferences about treatment, excluding medical management or palliative care. Qualitative findings were synthesised using thematic analysis, and quantitative findings were narratively described. Evidence certainty was assessed using CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We included eight studies. Findings ranged from low to very low certainty. Most studies only addressed TAVI. Studies addressing both TAVI and SAVR reported on factors affecting patients' decision-making along with treatment effectiveness, instead of trade-offs between procedures. Willingness to accept risk varied considerably. To improve their health status, participants were willing to accept higher mortality risk than current evidence suggests for either procedure. No study explicitly addressed valve reintervention, and one study reported variability in willingness to accept shorter duration of known effectiveness of TAVI compared with SAVR. The most common themes were desire for symptom relief and improved function. Participants preferred minimally invasive procedures with shorter hospital stay and recovery. The current body of evidence on patients' values, preferences and practical issues related to aortic stenosis management is of suboptimal rigour and reports widely disparate results regarding patients' perceptions. These findings emphasise the need for higher quality studies to inform clinical practice guidelines and the central importance of shared decision-making to individualise care fitted to each patient.
Topics: Aortic Valve Stenosis; Decision Making; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Humans; Patient Preference; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Risk Adjustment; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33563630
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2020-318334 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Aortic aneurysms occur when the aorta, the body's largest artery, grows in size, and can occur in the thoracic or abdominal aorta. The approaches to repair aortic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Aortic aneurysms occur when the aorta, the body's largest artery, grows in size, and can occur in the thoracic or abdominal aorta. The approaches to repair aortic aneurysms include directly exposing the aorta and replacing the diseased segment via open repair, or endovascular repair. Endovascular repair uses fluoroscopic-guidance to access the aorta and deliver a device to exclude the aneurysmal aortic segment without requiring a large surgical incision. Endovascular repair can be performed under a general anesthetic, during which the unconscious patient is paralyzed and reliant on an anesthetic machine to maintain the airway and provide oxygen to the lungs, or a loco-regional anesethetic, for which medications are administered to provide the person with sufficient sedation and pain control without requiring a general anesthetic. While people undergoing general anesthesia are more likely to remain still during surgery and have a well-controlled airway in the event of unanticipated complications, loco-regional anesthesia is associated with fewer postoperative complications in some studies. It remains unclear which anesthetic technique is associated with better outcomes following the endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of general anesthesia compared to loco-regional anesthesia for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 11 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for all randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of general anesthesia compared to loco-regional anesthesia for endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay. Our secondary outcomes were: incidence of endoleaks, requirement for re-intervention, incidence of myocardial infarction, quality of life, incidence of respiratory complications, incidence of pulmonary embolism, incidence of deep vein thrombosis, and length of procedure. We planned to use GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We found no studies, published or ongoing, that met our inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not identify any randomized controlled trials that compared general versus loco-regional anesthesia for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. There is currently insufficient high-quality evidence to determine the benefits or harms of either anesthetic approach during endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Well-designed prospective randomized trials with relevant clinical outcomes are needed to adequately address this.
Topics: Humans; Anesthesia, Conduction; Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics, General; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Endovascular Procedures; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life
PubMed: 37052421
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013182.pub2 -
Journal of Endovascular Therapy : An... Feb 2024Comparative effectiveness of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) and chimney graft endovascular aneurysm repair (ChEVAR) for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Comparative effectiveness of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) and chimney graft endovascular aneurysm repair (ChEVAR) for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (JAAs) remains unclear. Our objective was to identify and analyze the current body of evidence comparing the effectiveness of both techniques for JAA.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of FEVAR and ChEVAR for JAA repair. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Register for Controlled Trials from January 1, 1990, for randomized and non-randomized studies assessing outcomes of FEVAR and ChEVAR for JAA repair. Screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development, and Evaluations) certainty of evidence were performed in duplicate. Data were pooled statistically where possible.
RESULTS
Nine retrospective cohort studies comparing the use of FEVAR and ChEVAR for juxtarenal aneurysm were included for meta-analysis. The FEVAR and ChEVAR arms of the meta-analysis consisted of 726 participants and 518 participants, respectively. There were 598 (86.8%) and 332 (81.6%) men in each arm. The mean diameter was larger in the ChEVAR arm (59 mm vs 52.5 mm). Both techniques had similar rates of postoperative 30-day mortality, 3.38% (8/237) versus 3.52% (8/227), acute kidney injury, 16.76% (31/185) versus 17.31% (18/104), and major adverse cardiac events, 7.30% (46/630) versus 6.60% (22/333). The meta-analysis supported the use of FEVAR for most outcomes, with significant advantage for technical success (odds ratio [OR]: 3.24, 95% CI: 1.24-8.42) and avoidance of type 1 endoleak (OR: 5.76, 95% CI: 1.94-17.08), but a disadvantage for spinal cord ischemia (OR: 10.21, 95% CI: 1.21-86.11), which had a very low number of events. The quality of evidence was "moderate" for most outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Both endovascular techniques had good safety profiles. The evidence does not support superiority of either FEVAR or ChEVAR for JAA.
CLINICAL IMPACT
While lack of equipoise has hampered the design of randomised trials of open versus endovascular repair of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms, concern about the durability of endovascular repair highlights the need for stronger evidence of the comparative efficacy of endovascular techniques. This review performed meta-analysis and evidence appraisal of recent data from large observational studies comparing fenestrated and chimney techniques, using a comprehensive outcome set. Superiority of either intervention could not be established due to differences in participants' baseline risk in each study arm. However, data suggests that both techniques are safe and suitable for use when indicated.
PubMed: 38388373
DOI: 10.1177/15266028241231171