-
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma,... Jun 2023Civilian public mass shootings (CPMSs) are a major public health issue and in recent years several events have occurred worldwide. The aim of this systematic review was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Civilian public mass shootings (CPMSs) are a major public health issue and in recent years several events have occurred worldwide. The aim of this systematic review was to characterize injuries and mortality after CPMSs focusing on in-hospital management of hemorrhage and vascular injuries.
METHOD
A systematic review of all published literature was undertaken in Medline, Embase and Web of Science January 1st, 1968, to February 22nd, 2021, according to the PRISMA guidelines. Literature was eligible for inclusion if the CPMS included three or more people shot, injured or killed, had vascular injuries or hemorrhage.
RESULTS
The search identified 2884 studies; 34 were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. There were 2039 wounded in 45 CPMS events. The dominating anatomic injury location per event was the extremity followed by abdomen and chest. The median number of operations and operated patients per event was 22 (5-101) and 10.5 (4-138), respectively. A total of 899 deaths were reported with a median mortality rate of 36.1% per event (15.9-71.4%) Thirty-eight percent (13/34) of all studies reported on vascular injuries. Vascular injuries ranged from 8 to 29%; extremity vascular injury the most frequent. Specific vascular injuries included thoracic aorta 18% (42/232), carotid arteries 6% (14/232), and abdominal aorta 5% (12/232). Vascular injuries were involved in 8.3%-10% of all deaths.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review showed an overall high mortality after CPMS with injuries mainly located to the extremities, thorax and abdomen. About one quarter of deaths was related to hemorrhage involving central large vessel injuries. Further understanding of these injuries, and structured and uniform reporting of injuries and treatment protocols may help improve evaluation and management in the future. Level of Evidence Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.
Topics: Humans; Hemorrhage; Retrospective Studies; Vascular System Injuries; Wounds, Gunshot
PubMed: 37337265
DOI: 10.1186/s13049-023-01093-x -
The Journal of Thoracic and... Oct 2019The current guidelines do not consider chronic type A aortic dissection as one of the triggers for prophylactic aortic repair, and an aortic diameter of 55 mm is...
OBJECTIVES
The current guidelines do not consider chronic type A aortic dissection as one of the triggers for prophylactic aortic repair, and an aortic diameter of 55 mm is considered the threshold for surgery.
METHODS
From the institutional database, we retrieved 82 patients who were diagnosed as having chronic type A aortic dissection but did not undergo immediate surgical repair from 1997 to 2016. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse aortic events defined as aortic rupture and sudden death. Conversion to elective surgery during follow-up was regarded as competing risk for adverse events.
RESULTS
The median value of the maximal aortic diameter at baseline was 55.2 mm. During a median follow-up of 77.1 months, 19 adverse events occurred while 9 patients received elective aortic repair. On multivariable competing risk analyses, baseline aortic diameter and age emerged as significant and independent factors associated with aortic events. The estimated rates of aortic event within 5 years were 12.0%, 19.4%, and 29.7% for aortic diameters of 50, 60, and 70 mm, respectively, with escalating risk rates as age increased for the given aortic diameters.
CONCLUSIONS
In unrepaired chronic type A aortic dissection, aortic events were not infrequent even for patients with an aortic diameter of less than 55 mm. This finding indicates that there may be a need to lower the surgical threshold for chronic type A aortic dissection.
Topics: Aged; Aortic Dissection; Aorta; Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic; Aortic Rupture; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Chronic Disease; Death, Sudden; Disease Progression; Elective Surgical Procedures; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Retrospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 30578057
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.11.021 -
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2022Acute type A aortic dissections (ATAAD) pose a challenge to surgeons due to high mortality, and decision making regarding the appropriate procedure is controversial....
BACKGROUND
Acute type A aortic dissections (ATAAD) pose a challenge to surgeons due to high mortality, and decision making regarding the appropriate procedure is controversial. This study compared the outcomes of hemiarch and total arch replacement for ATAAD.
METHODS
The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for comparative studies on hemiarch versus total arch replacement that were published before May 1, 2022.
RESULTS
We included 23 observational studies with a total of 4,576 patients. Combined data analysis showed that early mortality (RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70-0.97; = 0.02), incidence of postoperative permanent neurological dysfunction (RR = 0.72; 95%CI:0.54∼0.94; = 0.02), and incidence of renal failure and dialysis (RR = 0.82; 95%CI:0.71∼0.96; = 0.01) were all lower for hemiarch than for total arch replacement. However, hemiarch replacement had a higher rate of late mortality (RR = 1.37; 95%CI:1.10∼1.71; = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of re-operation for bleeding, aortic re-operation, or postoperative pneumonia.
CONCLUSION
In this study, hemiarch replacement had better early outcomes but a higher late mortality rate than total arch replacement. Decisions regarding the extent of arch repair should be made according to location and extent of ATAAD and the experience of surgeons to ensure the most favorable prognosis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[INPLASY.COM], identifier [INPLASY202250088].
PubMed: 36237909
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.988619 -
The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery Dec 2020Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for treatment of blunt traumatic aortic injuries (BTAIs) is nowadays the gold standard technique in adult patients, replacing...
INTRODUCTION
Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for treatment of blunt traumatic aortic injuries (BTAIs) is nowadays the gold standard technique in adult patients, replacing gradually the use of open repair (OR). Although randomized controlled trials will never be performed comparing TEVAR to OR for BTAIs management, trauma and vascular societies guidelines today primarily recommend the former for BTAI patients with a suitable anatomy. The aim of this review was to describe past and recent data published in literature regarding pros and cons of TEVAR treatment in BTAI, and to analyze some debated issues and future perspectives.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) were used to obtain and describe selected articles on TEVAR in BTAI.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Young (<50 years) men were the most operated population. The use of TEVAR increased over the years, with a progressive reduction in mortality and overall postoperative complication rates when compared with OR. Lack of information remains about the percentage of urgent cases.
CONCLUSIONS
TEVAR is considered nowadays the treatment of choice in BTAI patients. In case of aortic rupture (grade IV) the treatment is mandatory, while intimal tear (grade I) and intramural hematoma (grade II) can be safely managed with no operative management (NOM). Debate is still ongoing on grade III (pseudoaneurysms). Unfortunately, several aspects remain not yet clarified, including disease classification, type and grade to treat, timing (urgent versus elective), priority of vascular injuries in polytrauma patients, and TEVAR use in pediatrics and young patients.
Topics: Adult; Aorta, Thoracic; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Endovascular Procedures; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vascular System Injuries; Wounds, Nonpenetrating
PubMed: 32964899
DOI: 10.23736/S0021-9509.20.11580-5 -
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders Mar 2023A paradoxical protective effect of diabetes on the development and progression of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) has been known for years. This study aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The association between diabetes and abdominal aortic aneurysms in men: results of two Danish screening studies, a systematic review, and a meta-analysis of population-based screening studies.
BACKGROUND
A paradoxical protective effect of diabetes on the development and progression of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) has been known for years. This study aimed to investigate whether the protective role of diabetes on AAAs has evolved over the years.
METHODS
A cross-sectional study, a systematic review and meta-analysis. This study was based on two large, population-based, randomised screening trials of men aged 65-74; VIVA (2008-2011) and DANCAVAS (2014-2018), including measurement of the abdominal aorta by ultrasound or CT, respectively. Analyses were performed using multiple logistic regressions to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) for AAAs in men with diabetes compared to those not having diabetes. Moreover, a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based screening studies of AAAs to visualise a potential change of the association between diabetes and AAAs. Studies reporting only on women or Asian populations were excluded.
RESULTS
In VIVA, the prevalence of AAA was 3.3%, crude OR for AAA in men with diabetes 1.04 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.80-1.34), and adjusted OR 0.64 (CI 0.48-0.84). In DANCAVAS, the prevalence of AAA was 4.2%, crude OR 1.44 (CI 1.11-1.87), and adjusted OR 0.78 (CI 0.59-1.04). Twenty-three studies were identified for the meta-analysis (N = 224 766). The overall crude OR was 0.90 (CI 0.77-1.05) before 2000 and 1.16 (CI 1.03-1.30) after 1999. The overall adjusted OR was 0.63 (CI 0.59-0.69) before 2000 and 0.69 (CI 0.57-0.84) after 1999.
CONCLUSION
Both the crude and adjusted OR showed a statistically non-significant trend towards an increased risk of AAA by the presence of diabetes. If this represents an actual trend, it could be due to a change in the diabetes population.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
DANCAVAS: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN12157806. VIVA: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00662480.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Cross-Sectional Studies; Diabetes Mellitus; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Ultrasonography; Denmark; Mass Screening; Risk Factors
PubMed: 36927295
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-023-03160-8 -
European Journal of Vascular and... Jun 2022To investigate the clinical impact of coeliac artery (CA) coverage during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the clinical impact of coeliac artery (CA) coverage during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases were searched from 1989 to 2020 for studies reporting visceral ischaemia, spinal cord ischaemia (SCI), 30 day/in hospital mortality, endoleaks, re-intervention, and caudal stent graft migration following CA coverage in patients undergoing TEVAR. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects modelling. The quality of the evidence was graded using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
Fifteen observational studies with 236 patients (108 male, age range 61.3 - 79 years) were included. The pooled visceral ischaemia rate was 13% with significant heterogeneity between studies (95% confidence intervals [CI] 4 - 24; I = 72%, p < .001). The SCI rate was 5% (95% CI 2 - 9; I = 0%); the 30 day/in hospital mortality was 4% (95% CI 1 - 7; I = 0%); the overall endoleak rate was 21% (95% CI 13 - 29; I = 35%) with a 5% (95% CI 0 - 13; I = 38%) rate of type Ib and 2% (95% CI 0 - 8; I = 43%) rate of type II endoleak from retrograde CA flow. The re-intervention rate was 13% (95% CI 6 - 22; I = 54%); the caudal stent graft migration rate was 3% (95% CI 0 - 9, I = 0%). The certainty of the body of evidence was judged to be very low for all outcomes.
CONCLUSION
CA coverage during TEVAR is associated with high rates of visceral ischaemia, spinal cord ischaemia, 30 day/in hospital mortality, endoleaks, and re-intervention. Although the literature is of poor quality and questions remain over effects estimates, there is evidence that CA coverage should be avoided if at all possible, during TEVAR.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number 244084.
Topics: Aged; Aorta, Thoracic; Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Celiac Artery; Endoleak; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Ischemia; Male; Middle Aged; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Spinal Cord Ischemia; Stents; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35460890
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2022.02.026 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Thoracic aortic arch aneurysms (TAAs) can be a life-threatening condition due to the potential risk of rupture. Treatment is recommended when the risk of rupture is...
BACKGROUND
Thoracic aortic arch aneurysms (TAAs) can be a life-threatening condition due to the potential risk of rupture. Treatment is recommended when the risk of rupture is greater than the risk of surgical complications. Depending on the cause, size and growth rate of the TAA, treatment may vary from close observation to emergency surgery. Aneurysms of the thoracic aorta can be managed by a number of surgical techniques. Open surgical repair (OSR) of aneurysms involves either partial or total replacement of the aorta, which is dependent on the extent of the diseased segment of the aorta. During OSR, the aneurysm is replaced with a synthetic graft. Hybrid repair (HR) involves a combination of open surgery with endovascular aortic stent graft placement. Hybrid repair requires varying degrees of invasiveness, depending on the number of supra-aortic branches that require debranching. The hybrid technique that combines supra-aortic vascular debranching with stent grafting of the aortic arch has been introduced as a therapeutic alternative. However, the short- and long-term outcomes of HR remain unclear, due to technical difficulties and complications as a result of the angulation of the aortic arch as well as handling of the arch during surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of HR versus conventional OSR for the treatment of TAAs.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 March 2021. We also searched references of relevant articles retrieved from the electronic search for additional citations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered for inclusion in the review all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing HR to OSR for TAAs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts obtained from the literature search to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. We retrieved the full text of studies deemed as potentially relevant by at least one review author. The same review authors screened the full-text articles independently for inclusion or exclusion.
MAIN RESULTS
No RCTs or CCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to the lack of RCTs or CCTs, we were unable to determine the safety and effectiveness of HR compared to OSR in people with TAAs, and we are unable to provide high-certainty evidence on the optimal surgical intervention for this cohort of patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs are necessary, addressing the objective of this review.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic; Humans; Negative Results
PubMed: 34085713
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012923.pub2 -
Journal of the American Heart... Nov 2020Background The prevalence of thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA) in patients with known abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is not well known and understudied. Our aim was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background The prevalence of thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA) in patients with known abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is not well known and understudied. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the overall prevalence of synchronous and metachronous TAA (SM-TAA) in patients with a known AAA and to understand the characteristics of this sub-population. Methods and Results We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from inception to November 2019 for all population-based studies reporting on the prevalence of SM-TAAs in a cohort of patients with AAA. Article screening and data extraction were performed by 2 authors and data were pooled using a random-effects model of proportions using Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. The main outcome was the prevalence of SM-TAAs in patients with AAAs. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of synchronous TAAs, metachronous TAAs, prevalence of TAAs in patients with AAA according to the anatomic location (ascending, arch, and descending) and the differences in prevalence of these aneurysms according to sex and risk factors. Six studies were included. The pooled-prevalence of SM-TAA in AAA patients was 19.2% (95% CI, 12.3-27.3). Results revealed that 15.2% (95% CI, 7.1-25.6) of men and 30.7% (95% CI, 25.2-36.5) of women with AAA had an SM-TAA. Women with AAA had a 2-fold increased risk of having an SM-TAA than men (relative risk [RRs], 2.16; 95% CI, 1.32-3.55). Diabetes mellitus was associated with a 43% decreased risk of having SM-TAA (RRs, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.80). Conclusions Since a fifth of AAA patients will have an SM-TAA, routine screening of SM-TAA and their clinical impact should be more thoroughly studied in patients with known AAA.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic; Humans; Prevalence
PubMed: 33103575
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.017468 -
European Journal of Cardio-thoracic... Jan 2020Limited uptake of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of the aorta hinders assessment of its efficacy compared to median sternotomy (MS). The objective of this systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Limited uptake of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of the aorta hinders assessment of its efficacy compared to median sternotomy (MS). The objective of this systematic review is to compare operative and perioperative outcomes for MIS versus MS. Online databases Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from inception until July 2018. Both randomized and observational studies of patients undergoing aortic root, ascending aorta or aortic arch surgery by MIS versus MS were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, reoperation for bleeding, perioperative renal impairment and neurological events. Intraoperative and postoperative timing measures were also evaluated. Thirteen observational studies were included comparing 1101 MIS and 1405 MS patients. The overall quality of evidence was very low for all outcomes. Mortality and the incidence of stroke were similar between the 2 cohorts. Meta-analysis demonstrated increased length of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time for patients undergoing MS [standardized mean difference 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-0.58; P = 0.001]. Patients receiving MS spent more time in hospital (standardized mean difference 0.30, 95% CI 0.17-0.43; P < 0.001) and intensive care (standardized mean difference 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.27; P < 0.001). Reoperation for bleeding (risk ratio 1.51, 95% CI 1.06-2.17; P = 0.024) and renal impairment (risk ratio 1.97, 95% CI 1.12-3.46; P = 0.019) were also greater for MS patients. There was substantial heterogeneity in meta-analyses for CPB and aortic cross-clamp timing outcomes. MIS may be associated with improved early clinical outcomes compared to MS, but the quality of the evidence is very low. Randomized evidence is needed to confirm these findings.
Topics: Aorta; Cardiopulmonary Bypass; Humans; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Reoperation; Sternotomy
PubMed: 31209468
DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezz177 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2022The management of chronic thoracic aortic aneurysms includes conservative management, watchful waiting, endovascular stent grafting and open surgical replacement. The...
BACKGROUND
The management of chronic thoracic aortic aneurysms includes conservative management, watchful waiting, endovascular stent grafting and open surgical replacement. The Effective Treatments for Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms (ETTAA) study investigates timing and intervention choice.
OBJECTIVE
To describe pre- and post-intervention management of and outcomes for chronic thoracic aortic aneurysms.
DESIGN
A systematic review of intervention effects; a Delphi study of 360 case scenarios based on aneurysm size, location, age, operative risk and connective tissue disorders; and a prospective cohort study of growth, clinical outcomes, costs and quality of life.
SETTING
Thirty NHS vascular/cardiothoracic units.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients aged > 17 years who had existing or new aneurysms of ≥ 4 cm in diameter in the arch, descending or thoracoabdominal aorta.
INTERVENTIONS
Endovascular stent grafting and open surgical replacement.
MAIN OUTCOMES
Pre-intervention aneurysm growth, pre-/post-intervention survival, clinical events, readmissions and quality of life; and descriptive statistics for costs and quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months and value of information using a propensity score-matched subsample.
RESULTS
The review identified five comparative cohort studies (endovascular stent grafting patients, = 3955; open surgical replacement patients, = 21,197). Pooled short-term all-cause mortality favoured endovascular stent grafting (odds ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.98; no heterogeneity). Data on survival beyond 30 days were mixed. Fewer short-term complications were reported with endovascular stent grafting. The Delphi study included 20 experts (13 centres). For patients with aneurysms of ≤ 6.0 cm in diameter, watchful waiting was preferred. For patients with aneurysms of > 6.0 cm, open surgical replacement was preferred in the arch, except for elderly or high-risk patients, and in the descending aorta if patients had connective tissue disorders. Otherwise endovascular stent grafting was preferred. Between 2014 and 2018, 886 patients were recruited (watchful waiting, = 489; conservative management, = 112; endovascular stent grafting, = 150; open surgical replacement, = 135). Pre-intervention death rate was 8.6% per patient-year; 49.6% of deaths were aneurysm related. Death rates were higher for women (hazard ratio 1.79, 95% confidence interval 1.25 to 2.57; = 0.001) and older patients (age 61-70 years: hazard ratio 2.50, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 5.43; age 71-80 years: hazard ratio 3.49, 95% confidence interval 1.26 to 9.66; age > 80 years: hazard ratio 7.01, 95% confidence interval 2.50 to 19.62; all compared with age < 60 years, < 0.001) and per 1-cm increase in diameter (hazard ratio 1.90, 95% confidence interval 1.65 to 2.18; = 0.001). The results were similar for aneurysm-related deaths. Decline per year in quality of life was greater for older patients (additional change -0.013 per decade increase in age, 95% confidence interval -0.019 to -0.007; < 0.001) and smokers (additional change for ex-smokers compared with non-smokers 0.003, 95% confidence interval -0.026 to 0.032; additional change for current smokers compared with non-smokers -0.034, 95% confidence interval -0.057 to -0.01; = 0.004). At the time of intervention, endovascular stent grafting patients were older (age difference 7.1 years; 95% confidence interval 4.7 to 9.5 years; < 0.001) and more likely to be smokers (75.8% vs. 66.4%; = 0.080), have valve disease (89.9% vs. 71.6%; < 0.0001), have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (21.3% vs. 13.3%; = 0.087), be at New York Heart Association stage III/IV (22.3% vs. 16.0%; = 0.217), have lower levels of haemoglobin (difference -6.8 g/l, 95% confidence interval -11.2 to -2.4 g/l; = 0.003) and take statins (69.3% vs. 42.2%; < 0.0001). Ten (6.7%) endovascular stent grafting and 15 (11.1%) open surgical replacement patients died within 30 days of the procedure ( = 0.2107). One-year overall survival was 82.5% (95% confidence interval 75.2% to 87.8%) after endovascular stent grafting and 79.3% (95% confidence interval 71.1% to 85.4%) after open surgical replacement. Variables affecting survival were aneurysm site, age, New York Heart Association stage and time waiting for procedure. For endovascular stent grafting, utility decreased slightly, by -0.017 (95% confidence interval -0.062 to 0.027), in the first 6 weeks. For open surgical replacement, there was a substantial decrease of -0.160 (95% confidence interval -0.199 to -0.121; < 0.001) up to 6 weeks after the procedure. Over 12 months endovascular stent grafting was less costly, with higher quality-adjusted life-years. Formal economic analysis was unfeasible.
LIMITATIONS
The study was limited by small numbers of patients receiving interventions and because only 53% of patients were suitable for both interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
Small (4-6 cm) aneurysms require close observation. Larger (> 6 cm) aneurysms require intervention without delay. Endovascular stent grafting and open surgical replacement were successful for carefully selected patients, but cost comparisons were unfeasible. The choice of intervention is well established, but the timing of intervention remains challenging.
FUTURE WORK
Further research should include an analysis of the risk factors for growth/rupture and long-term outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04044627 and NCT02010892.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Vol. 26, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Adolescent; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic; Child; Cohort Studies; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Endovascular Procedures; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Stents
PubMed: 35094747
DOI: 10.3310/ABUT7744