-
Journal of Vascular Surgery Dec 2019Isolated abdominal aortic dissection (IAAD) has remained poorly understood because of its rarity. We explored the prevalence, clinical characteristics, risk factors,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Isolated abdominal aortic dissection (IAAD) has remained poorly understood because of its rarity. We explored the prevalence, clinical characteristics, risk factors, imaging characteristics, and treatment strategy of IAAD to facilitate its diagnosis and treatment.
METHODS
We performed a meta-analysis of 17 studies, with single-arm-based and network meta-analysis as the main data synthesis method. The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched from their inception to July 2018. A total of 9163 patients with aortic disease were enrolled, with IAAD identified in 491 patients.
RESULTS
The pooled prevalence of IAAD among cases of aortic dissection overall, type B aortic dissection, and type A aortic dissection was 1.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9%-3.4%), 4.1% (95% CI, 2.5%-6.6%), and 2.0% (95% CI, 0.7%-3.9%), respectively. Abdominal pain was the most common symptom (50.8%), followed by back pain (30.5%), and chest pain (21.7%). Up to 41.0% of the patients with IAAD did not present with any clinical symptoms, and up to 71.0% of these patients had negative findings on physical examination. The top three most prevalent risk factors for IAAD were hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and smoking. Most cases of IAAD were limited to the aorta inferior to the renal arteries (81.7%), and the average aortic diameter was 4 cm. No statistically significant difference was observed between open surgery, endovascular aortic repair, and conservative management for both early and late mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
The results from the present meta-analysis regarding IAAD support the following conclusions and recommendations. First, IAAD is rare and predominantly affects males. Second, symptoms (pain) might or might not be present, and physical findings will rarely be found on abdominal examination. Third, hypertension is the most prevalent risk factor. Fourth, most cases IAAD will be infrarenal. Finally, a complication-specific approach, similar to that for type B aortic dissection, would be appropriate.
Topics: Aortic Dissection; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Humans; Prevalence; Risk Factors
PubMed: 31204217
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.04.467 -
Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic... Mar 2022This study aims to systematically review published literature on male-female differences in presentation, management and outcomes in patients diagnosed with acute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This study aims to systematically review published literature on male-female differences in presentation, management and outcomes in patients diagnosed with acute thoracic aortic dissection (AD).
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted for studies published between 1 January 1999 and 19 October 2020 investigating mortality and morbidity in adult patients diagnosed with AD. Patient and treatment characteristics were compared with odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences and a meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed for early mortality. Overall survival and reoperation were visualized by pooled Kaplan-Meier curves.
RESULTS
Nine studies investigating type A dissections (AD-A), 1 investigating type B dissections (AD-B) and 3 investigating both AD-A and AD-B were included encompassing 18 659 patients. Males were younger in both AD-A (P < 0.001) and AD-B (P < 0.001), and in AD-A patients males had more distally extended dissections [OR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.70; P < 0.001]. Longer operation times were observed for males in AD-A (standardized mean difference 0.29, 95% CI 0.17-0.41; P < 0.001) while male patients were less often treated conservatively in AD-B (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.58-0.72; P < 0.001). The pooled early mortality risk ratio for males versus females was 0.94 (95% CI 0.84-1.06, P = 0.308) in AD-A and 0.92 (95% CI 0.83-1.03, P = 0.143) in AD-B. Pooled overall mortality in AD-A showed no male-female difference, whereas male patients had more reinterventions during follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review shows male-female differences in AD patient and treatment characteristics, comparable early and overall mortality and inconsistent outcome reporting. As published literature is scarce and heterogeneous, large prospective studies with standardized reporting of male-female characteristics and outcomes are clearly warranted. Improved knowledge of male-female differences in AD will help shape optimal individualized care for both males and females.
CLINICAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO, ID number: CRD42020155926.
Topics: Adult; Aortic Dissection; Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Endovascular Procedures; Female; Humans; Male; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34664071
DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivab270 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Oct 2022Best medical therapy (BMT) should be recommended for treating uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection (uSTBAD), whereas thoracic aortic endovascular repair... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Best medical therapy (BMT) should be recommended for treating uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection (uSTBAD), whereas thoracic aortic endovascular repair (TEVAR) has been controversial for uSTBAD.
METHODS
In this paper, a meta-analysis was conducted on all available randomized controlled trials and observational studies that evaluated the relative benefits and harms of TEVAR and BMT for the management of patients suffering from uSTBAD. Primary endpoints consisted of early adverse events, long-term adverse events, and aortic remodeling. In addition, risk differences (RDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. The random-effects model or the fixed-effects model was used in accordance with the 50% heterogeneity threshold.
RESULTS
Seven observational studies and two randomized controlled studies from 11 articles that contained 15,066 patients with uSTBAD (1518 TEVARs) met the inclusion criteria. For early outcomes, no significant differences were found between the TEVAR group and the BMT group in aortic rupture, retrograde dissection, paraplegia/paraparesis, reintervention, aorta-related death, and all-cause death. In the long run, the TEVAR group was found to have a significantly lower incidence of adverse events, which included aortic rupture (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.16-0.42; P < .05; heterogeneity: P = .90, I = 0%), reintervention (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.75; P < .05; heterogeneity: P = .17, I = 41%), aorta-related death (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18-0.42; P < .05; heterogeneity: P = .61, I = 0%), and all-cause death (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.66; P < .05; heterogeneity: P = .05, I = 53%) as compared with the BMT group. Moreover, in compared with BMT, TEVAR was found to significantly contribute to the complete thrombosis of thoracic false lumen (OR, 55.34; 95% CI, 34.32-89.21; P < .05; heterogeneity: P = .97, I = 0%), and aortic regression (true lumen expansion and false lumen shrinkage).
CONCLUSIONS
Although early endovascular repair of uSTBAD does not outperform BMT, its implementation is found to be necessary to facilitate the long-term prognosis. Accordingly, if early TEVAR is to be deferred, close follow-up is critical to allow for timely reintervention.
Topics: Aortic Dissection; Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic; Aortic Rupture; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35390485
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.03.876 -
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 -
European Journal of Vascular and... Nov 2022To investigate outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in high risk patients. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in high risk patients.
METHODS
Bibliographic sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL) were searched using combinations of thesaurus and free text terms. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021287207) and reported according to PRISMA 2020. Pooled estimates were calculated using odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) applying the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance method. EVAR peri-operative mortality in high risk patients over time was examined with mixed effects meta-regression. The GRADE framework was used to rate the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
The pooled peri-operative mortality in 18 416 high risk patients who underwent EVAR was 3% (95% CI 2.3 - 4%) and has significantly reduced over time (year of publication p = .003; median study point p = .023). The peri-operative mortality was significantly lower in high risk patients treated with EVAR compared with open repair (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.45 - 0.92), but no significant difference was found in overall (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.76 - 1.49) or aneurysm related mortality (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.21 - 1.55). No significant difference was found in overall mortality between high risk patients treated with EVAR vs. no intervention (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.14 - 1.26), but the aneurysm related mortality was significantly lower in the former (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.14 - 0.63). The peri-operative mortality was higher in high risk than normal risk patients treated with EVAR (OR 2.33; 95% CI 1.75 - 3.10), as was the overall mortality (HR 3.50; 95% CI 2.55 - 4.80). The certainty of evidence was very low for EVAR vs. open surgery or no intervention and low for high vs. normal risk patients.
CONCLUSION
The EVAR peri-operative mortality in high risk patients has improved over time. Even though the aneurysm related mortality of EVAR is lower compared with no intervention, EVAR may confer no overall survival benefit.
PubMed: 35872342
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2022.07.009 -
European Journal of Vascular and... 2022To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of physician modified endografts (PMEG) for the treatment of thoraco-abdominal (TAAA) and complex... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of physician modified endografts (PMEG) for the treatment of thoraco-abdominal (TAAA) and complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (C-AAA).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science Core Collection, Scielo, and Open Grey.
REVIEW METHODS
The databases were searched from inception to July 2021 for studies reporting on outcomes of PMEGs for TAAA or C-AAA repair. A systematic review was conducted (protocol CRD42021267856) and data were pooled using a random effects model of proportions. The outcomes analysed were major adverse events at 30 days (30 day mortality, myocardial infarction, respiratory failure requiring prolonged ventilation [> 24 hours or re-intubation], renal failure requiring dialysis, bowel ischaemia requiring surgery, major stroke, or definitive paraplegia); technical success; 30 day mortality; ruptures; spinal cord ischaemia; endoleaks; re-interventions; and target vessel patency.
RESULTS
Twenty studies were included. Overall study quality assessment was found to be low. Overall, 909 PMEGs were reported and analysed. Regarding aneurysm location (n = 867), 222 patients had extent I - III TAAAs and 645 had C-AAA or extent IV TAAA. Regarding presentation, 14 studies reported whether the patients were treated in an elective or urgent setting (n = 782). Overall, 500 (63.9%) patients were treated in an elective setting and 282 (36.1%) in an urgent setting. Major adverse events (at 30 days) occurred in 15.5% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.8 - 20.8; I = 63%, 135/832 cases): 11.6% (95% CI 8.1 - 15.7; I = 0%, 23/280 cases) for elective patients and 24.6% for urgent (95% CI 14.1 - 36.6; I = 65%, 50/192 cases). Overall technical success was 97.2% (95% CI 95.4 - 98.7; I = 0%, 587/611 cases): 98.0% (95% CI 92.1 - 100; I = 0%, 106/113cases) for extent I - III TAAAs and 99.4% (95% CI 97.5 - 100; I = 0%, 317/324 cases) for C-AAA and extent IV TAAAs. Regarding technique, technical success was 96.1% for fenestrated endovascular repair (FEVAR; 95% CI 93.2 - 98.4; I = 0%, 313/329 cases) and 99.8% for FEVAR/branched endovascular repair (95% CI 99.8 - 100; I = 0%, 17/18 cases).
CONCLUSION
Physician modified fenestrated or branched grafts for endovascular aortic repair seem feasible and safe in the short term. However, the quality of the available data is low, which highlights the need for better and more accurate data regarding this technique.
Topics: Humans; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Endovascular Procedures; Prosthesis Design; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Physicians
PubMed: 35483575
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2022.04.015 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Mar 2021Tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) is a pro-apoptotic protein showing broad biological functions. Data from animal studies indicate that... (Review)
Review
Tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) is a pro-apoptotic protein showing broad biological functions. Data from animal studies indicate that TRAIL may possibly contribute to the pathophysiology of cardiomyopathy, atherosclerosis, ischemic stroke and abdominal aortic aneurysm. It has been also suggested that TRAIL might be useful in cardiovascular risk stratification. This systematic review aimed to evaluate whether TRAIL is a risk factor or risk marker in cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) focusing on major adverse cardiovascular events. Two databases (PubMed and Cochrane Library) were searched until December 2020 without a year limit in accordance to the PRISMA guidelines. A total of 63 eligible original studies were identified and included in our systematic review. Studies suggest an important role of TRAIL in disorders such as heart failure, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, ischemic stroke, peripheral artery disease, and pulmonary and gestational hypertension. Most evidence associates reduced TRAIL levels and increased TRAIL-R2 concentration with all-cause mortality in patients with CVDs. It is, however, unclear whether low TRAIL levels should be considered as a risk factor rather than a risk marker of CVDs. Further studies are needed to better define the association of TRAIL with cardiovascular diseases.
PubMed: 33803523
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10061252 -
Scientific Reports May 2021Previous studies have drawn causal associations between fluoroquinolone use and collagen pathologies including tendon rupture and retinopathy. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Previous studies have drawn causal associations between fluoroquinolone use and collagen pathologies including tendon rupture and retinopathy. This meta-analysisattempted to assess the association between fluoroquinolone use and the risk of aortic dissection or aortic aneurysm. A systematic search was performed on Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library. 9 studies were included in final analysis. Primary random-effects meta-analysis of 7 studies, excluding 2 pharmacovigilance studies demonstrated statistically increased odds of aortic dissection (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.71-3.32) aortic aneurysm (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.59-2.48), and aortic aneurysm or dissection (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.13-1.89; I = 72%) with current use of fluoroquinolones compared to their nonuser counterparts. Based on the "number needed-to-harm" analysis, 7246 (95% CI: 4329 to 14,085) patients would need to be treated with fluoroquinolones for a duration of at least three days in order for one additional patient to be harmed, assuming a population baseline incidence of aortic dissection and aneurysm rupture to be 10 per 100,000 patient-years. With strong statistical association, these findings suggest a causal relationship, warranting future research to elucidate the pathophysiological and mechanistic plausibility of this association. These findings however, should not cease prescription of fluoroquinolones, especially when clinically indicated.
Topics: Aortic Dissection; Aortic Aneurysm; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Incidence; Pharmacovigilance; Risk
PubMed: 34040146
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-90692-8 -
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 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Apr 2020The purpose of the study was to provide a systematic review of the literature reporting the contemporary early outcomes after endovascular and open repair of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of the study was to provide a systematic review of the literature reporting the contemporary early outcomes after endovascular and open repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).
METHODS
MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies from January 2006 to March 2018 that reported either endovascular (using branched or fenestrated endografts) or open repair of TAAA in at least 10 patients. Outcomes of interest included perioperative mortality, spinal cord injury (SCI), renal failure requiring dialysis, and stroke. Pooled proportions were determined using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
The analysis included 71 studies, of which 24 and 47 reported outcomes after endovascular and open TAAA repair, respectively. Endovascular cohort patients were older and had higher rates of coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes. Endovascular repair was associated with higher rates of SCI (13.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.5%-16.7%) compared with open repair (7.4%; 95% CI, 6.2%-8.7%; P < .01) but similar rates of permanent paralysis (5.2% [95% CI, 3.8%-6.7%] vs 4.4% [95% CI, 3.3%-5.6%]; P = .39), lower rates of postoperative dialysis (6.4% [95% CI, 3.2%-9.5%] vs 12.0% [95% CI, 8.2%-16.3%]; P = .03) but similar rates of being discharged on permanent dialysis (3.7% [95% CI, 2.0%-5.9%] vs 3.8% [95% CI, 2.9%-5.3%]; P = .93), a trend to lower stroke (2.7% [95% CI, 1.9%-3.6%] vs 3.9% [95% CI, 3.0%-4.9%]; P = .06), and similar perioperative mortality (7.4% [95% CI, 5.9%-9.1%] vs 8.9% [95% CI, 7.2%-10.9%]; P = .21).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review summarizes the contemporary literature results of endovascular and open TAAA repair. Endovascular repair studies included patients with more comorbidities and were associated with higher rates of SCI but similar rates of permanent paraplegia, whereas open repair studies had higher rates of postoperative dialysis but similar rates of being discharged on permanent dialysis. Perioperative mortality rates were similar. Universally adopted reporting standards for patient characteristics, outcomes, and the conduct of contemporary comparative studies will allow better assessment and comparisons of the risks associated with the two surgical treatment options for TAAA.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Vascular Grafting
PubMed: 31690525
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.06.216