-
JAMA Aug 2016Acute aortic syndrome (AAS), a potentially fatal pathologic process within the aortic wall, should be suspected in patients presenting with severe thoracic pain and... (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Acute aortic syndrome (AAS), a potentially fatal pathologic process within the aortic wall, should be suspected in patients presenting with severe thoracic pain and hypertension. AAS, including aortic dissection (approximately 90% of cases) and intramural hematoma, may be complicated by poor perfusion, aneurysm, or uncontrollable pain and hypertension. AAS is uncommon (approximately 3.5-6.0 per 100,000 patient-years) but rapid diagnosis is imperative as an emergency surgical procedure is frequently necessary.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the current evidence on diagnosis and treatment of AAS.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials for articles on diagnosis and treatment of AAS from June 1994 to January 29, 2016, were performed. Only clinical trials and prospective observational studies of 10 or more patients were included. Eighty-two studies (2 randomized clinical trials and 80 observational) describing 57,311 patients were reviewed.
FINDINGS
Chest or back pain was the most commonly reported presenting symptom of AAS (61.6%-84.8%). Patients were typically aged 60 to 70 years, male (50%-81%), and had hypertension (45%-100%). Sensitivities of computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of AAS were 100% and 95% to 100%, respectively. Transesophageal echocardiography was 86% to 100% sensitive, whereas D-dimer was 51.7% to 100% sensitive and 32.8% to 89.2% specific among 6 studies (n = 876). An immediate open surgical procedure is needed for dissection of the ascending aorta, given the high mortality (26%-58%) and proximity to the aortic valve and great vessels (with potential for dissection complications such as tamponade). An RCT comparing endovascular surgical procedure to medical management for uncomplicated AAS in the descending aorta (n = 61) revealed no dissection-related deaths in either group. Endovascular surgical procedure was better than medical treatment (97% vs 43%, P < .001) for the primary end point of "favorable aortic remodeling" (false lumen thrombosis and no aortic dilation or rupture). The remaining evidence on therapies was observational, introducing significant selection bias.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Because of the high mortality rate, AAS should be considered and diagnosed promptly in patients presenting with acute chest or back pain and high blood pressure. Computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and transesophageal echocardiography are reliable tools for diagnosing AAS. Available data suggest that open surgical repair is optimal for treating type A (ascending aorta) AAS, whereas thoracic endovascular aortic repair may be optimal for treating type B (descending aorta) AAS. However, evidence is limited by the paucity of randomized trials.
Topics: Acute Disease; Aged; Aortic Dissection; Aortic Aneurysm; Aortic Diseases; Back Pain; Chest Pain; Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products; Hematoma; Humans; Hypertension; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Medical Illustration; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 27533160
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.10026 -
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2018Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) represents an important public health problem with a prevalence between 1.3% and 12.5%. Several population-based randomized trials have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) represents an important public health problem with a prevalence between 1.3% and 12.5%. Several population-based randomized trials have evaluated ultrasound screening for AAA providing evidence of a reduction in aneurysm-related mortality in the screened population. The aim of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk factors for AAA. We conducted a systematic review of observational studies and we performed a meta-analysis that evaluated the following risk factors: gender, smoking habits, hypertension, coronary artery disease and family history of AAA. Respect to a previous a meta-analysis we added the funnel plot to examine the effect sizes estimated from individual studies as measure of their precision; sensitivity analysis to check the stability of study findings and estimate how the overall effect size would be modified by removal of one study; cumulative analysis to evaluate the trend between studies in relation to publication year. Abdominal aortic aneurysm prevalence is higher in smokers and in males. On the other hand, while diabetes is a risk factor for many cardiovascular diseases, it is not a risk factor for AAA. In addition, it is important to underline that all countries, where AAA screening was set up, had high income level and the majority belong to Western Europe (United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy, Poland, Spain and Belgium). Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening is fundamental for public health. It could avoid deaths, ruptures, and emergency surgical interventions if abdominal aortic aneurysm was diagnosed early in the population target for screening.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Coronary Artery Disease; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Medical History Taking; Risk Factors; Sex Factors; Smoking
PubMed: 30544688
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15122805 -
European Journal of Vascular and... Mar 2020The objective was to investigate whether endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has better peri-operative and late clinical outcomes than open repair for non-ruptured... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Editor's Choice - Endovascular vs. Open Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Updated Peri-operative and Long Term Data of Randomised Controlled Trials.
OBJECTIVE
The objective was to investigate whether endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has better peri-operative and late clinical outcomes than open repair for non-ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.
METHODS
Electronic bibliographic sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) were searched up to July 2019 using a combination of thesaurus and free text terms to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of EVAR and open repair. The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Pooled estimates of dichotomous outcomes were calculated using odds ratio (OR) or risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A time to event data meta-analysis was performed using the inverse variance method and the results were reported as summary hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI.
RESULTS
Seven RCTs reporting a total of 2 983 patients were included in quantitative synthesis. Three of the trials reported long term follow up that extended to 15.8 years, 14.2 years, and 12.5 years. Meta-analysis found significantly lower odds of 30 day (OR, 0.36; 95% CI 0.20-0.66) and in hospital mortality with EVAR (RD -0.03; 95% CI -0.04 to -0.02). Meta-analysis of the three trials reporting long term follow up found no significant difference in all cause mortality at any time between EVAR and open repair (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.93-1.13; p = .62). The hazard of all cause (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42-0.91) and aneurysm related death within six months (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.24-0.75) was significantly lower in patients who underwent EVAR, but with further follow up, the pooled hazard estimate moved in favour of open surgery; in the long term (>8 years) the hazard of aneurysm related mortality was significantly higher after EVAR (HR 5.12; 95% CI 1.59-16.44). The risk of secondary intervention (HR 2.13; 95% CI 1.69-2.68), aneurysm rupture (OR, 5.08; 95% CI 1.11-23.31), and death due to rupture (OR, 3.57; 95% CI 1.87-6.80) was significantly higher after EVAR, but the risk of death due to cancer was not significantly different between EVAR and open repair (OR, 1.03; 95% CI 0.84-1.25).
CONCLUSION
Compared with open surgery, EVAR results in a better outcome during the first six months but carries an increased risk of aneurysm related mortality after eight years.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31899100
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.11.030 -
Annals of Surgery Jun 2023To estimate the global and regional prevalence and cases of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in 2019 and to evaluate major associated factors.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the global and regional prevalence and cases of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in 2019 and to evaluate major associated factors.
BACKGROUND
Understanding the global prevalence of AAA is essential for optimizing health services and reducing mortality from reputed AAA.
METHODS
PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched for articles published until October 11, 2021. Population-based studies that reported AAA prevalence in the general population, defined AAA as an aortic diameter of 30 mm or greater with ultrasonography or computed tomography. A multilevel mixed-effects meta-regression approach was used to establish the relation between age and AAA prevalence for high-demographic sociodemographic index and low-and middle-sociodemographic index countries. Odds ratios of AAA associated factors were pooled using a random-effects method.
RESULTS
We retained 54 articles across 19 countries. The global prevalence of AAA among persons aged 30 to 79 years was 0.92% (95% CI, 0.65-1.30), translating to a total of 35.12 million (95% CI, 24.94-49.80) AAA cases in 2019. Smoking, male sex, family history of AAA, advanced age, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, obesity, cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, claudication, peripheral artery disease, pulmonary disease, and renal disease were associated with AAA. In 2019, the Western Pacific region had the highest AAA prevalence at 1.31% (95% CI, 0.94-1.85), whereas the African region had the lowest prevalence at 0.33% (95% CI, 0.23-0.48).
CONCLUSIONS
A substantial proportion of people are affected by AAA. There is a need to optimize epidemiological studies to promptly respond to at-risk and identified cases to improve outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Male; Risk Factors; Prevalence; Smoking; Hypertension; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Ultrasonography; Lung Diseases
PubMed: 36177847
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005716 -
Current Pharmaceutical Design 2022Several studies have linked high Lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) concentrations to cardiovascular events, including the formation of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms (AAA). We review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several studies have linked high Lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) concentrations to cardiovascular events, including the formation of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms (AAA). We review and meta-analyze existing evidence on the association of Lp(a) levels with AAA.
METHODS
Studies evaluating the link of Lp(a) with AAA, up to December 27th 2021, were identified by a systematic search of PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases. The results were qualitatively and quantitatively synthesized according to PRISMA guidelines. Results are presented as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
A total of 5,078 subjects (1,637 patients with AAA vs. 3,441 controls) from 11 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a mean age of 69.9 years and a male sex prevalence of 85.8%. Based on the qualitative synthesis, high Lp(a) concentrations are linked to abdominal aortic wall degradation and extracellular matrix disarrangement. Moreover, despite the considerable variability among races, high Lp(a) levels are related to increased AAA risk, independently of race differences. Accordingly, patients with AAA displayed significantly higher Lp(a) levels compared to controls (SMD: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.55-1.17, p < 0.001). The outcome was not affected in a sensitivity analysis excluding three outlying studies (SMD: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.22-0.58, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis indicates the association between high Lp(a) levels and the presence of AAA, although existing literature presents high heterogeneity. Further studies are needed to standardize Lp(a) measurements and to conclude whether Lp(a) can be used as a sensitive biomarker of early presymptomatic AAA diagnosis.
Topics: Humans; Male; Aged; Lipoprotein(a); Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Biomarkers; Prevalence; Risk Factors
PubMed: 36424795
DOI: 10.2174/1381612829666221124110920 -
Current Cardiology Reviews 2021Aortic aneurysms are worrisome because of their predisposition to dissection and rupture. Beta-blockers are considered first-line therapy for aortic aneurysms. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Aortic aneurysms are worrisome because of their predisposition to dissection and rupture. Beta-blockers are considered first-line therapy for aortic aneurysms. The following meta-analysis assesses if beta-blockers diminish aortic aneurysm growth.
METHODS
A literature search was performed to collect information on clinical trials that have assessed aortic aneurysm growth between beta-blockers and placebo. The primary endpoint was aortic aneurysm growth rate per year. A forest plot with a random-effects model was used for analysis.
RESULTS
Eight clinical trials were included in the analysis. Beta-blockers showed a statistically non-significant effect on aortic aneurysm growth (standard mean difference -0.44; 95% CI [-0.44, 0.00]).
CONCLUSION
Beta-blockers do not significantly influence aortic aneurysm growth. Further studies are required to find a suitable medical therapy to reduce growth rates.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Humans
PubMed: 33143615
DOI: 10.2174/1573403X16999201102213619 -
Heart (British Cardiac Society) Sep 2019To assess the association of metformin prescription with the risk of aortic aneurysm, aortic aneurysm events and the enlargement of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the association of metformin prescription with the risk of aortic aneurysm, aortic aneurysm events and the enlargement of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus for epidemiological studies up to November 2018. We included observational studies which evaluated the association of metformin prescription with the risk of aortic aneurysm disease, and we also included studies involving progression and enlargement of AAA. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of included studies. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted in line with the between-study heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses were performed to identify the source of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Eight studies enrolling 29 587 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. We found that metformin prescription could significantly limit the enlargement of aortic aneurysm (weighted mean difference: -0.83 mm/year, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.28, I=89.6%) among patients with AAA. Metformin prescription status may be associated with a decreased risk of aortic aneurysm and aortic aneurysm events.
CONCLUSIONS
According to the available epidemiological evidence, metformin prescription could limit the expansion of AAA among patients with this disease, and may be involved with a lower incidence of aortic aneurysm and aortic aneurysm events. Randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm whether metformin could reduce the enlargement of AAA in patients with or without diabetes.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Aortic Rupture; Diabetes Mellitus; Disease Progression; Drug Prescriptions; Drug Utilization; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Incidence; Metformin; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 30936409
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2018-314639 -
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Genetic Associations: Mostly False? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.European Journal of Vascular and... Jan 2016Many associations between abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and genetic polymorphisms have been reported. It is unclear which are genuine and which may be caused by type 1... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND
Many associations between abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and genetic polymorphisms have been reported. It is unclear which are genuine and which may be caused by type 1 errors, biases, and flexible study design. The objectives of the study were to identify associations supported by current evidence and to investigate the effect of study design on reporting associations.
METHODS
Data sources were MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Reports were dual-reviewed for relevance and inclusion against predefined criteria (studies of genetic polymorphisms and AAA risk). Study characteristics and data were extracted using an agreed tool and reports assessed for quality. Heterogeneity was assessed using I(2) and fixed- and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for variants that were reported at least twice, if any had reported an association. Strength of evidence was assessed using a standard guideline.
RESULTS
Searches identified 467 unique articles, of which 97 were included. Of 97 studies, 63 reported at least one association. Of 92 studies that conducted multiple tests, only 27% corrected their analyses. In total, 263 genes were investigated, and associations were reported in polymorphisms in 87 genes. Associations in CDKN2BAS, SORT1, LRP1, IL6R, MMP3, AGTR1, ACE, and APOA1 were supported by meta-analyses.
CONCLUSION
Uncorrected multiple testing and flexible study design (particularly testing many inheritance models and subgroups, and failure to check for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium) contributed to apparently false associations being reported. Heterogeneity, possibly due to the case mix, geographical, temporal, and environmental variation between different studies, was evident. Polymorphisms in nine genes had strong or moderate support on the basis of the literature at this time. Suggestions are made for improving AAA genetics study design and conduct.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Heredity; Humans; Odds Ratio; Pedigree; Phenotype; Polymorphism, Genetic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 26460285
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.09.006 -
International Angiology : a Journal of... Feb 2021Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a silent, progressive disease that can lead to death. It is easily diagnosed with noninvasive methods and its routine treatment has...
INTRODUCTION
Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a silent, progressive disease that can lead to death. It is easily diagnosed with noninvasive methods and its routine treatment has excellent results. This creates an optimal situation for population screening programs. The aim of this paper was to assess results and methodological quality of cost-utility studies on screening versus no screening scenarios for AAA to assess future establishment of new AAA screening programs.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITON
A systematic review of efficiency (cost-effectiveness and cost-utility) studies was performed, finally selecting cost-utility studies on AAA screening versus no screening. Papers were selected that dealt with efficiency of screening for AAA according to PICOTS framework and the methodological quality assessed according to the economic evaluation analyses described by Drummond and Caro. Two independent reviewers were involved in the procedure.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Research retrieved 88 studies. From those, 26 showed cost-effectiveness and cost-utility results. Finally, 10 studies had cost-utility results and suited criteria (published in the last 10 years; time-horizon: 10 years or more) for exhaustive analysis. All publications, except one, showed adequate incremental cost-utility ratios according to different national perspectives. Methodological assessment showed some quality limitations, but the majority of items analyzed were favorably answered after applying the questionnaires.
CONCLUSIONS
Confirmation of the cost-utility results in this revision at a national/regional level should be the basis for the implantation of new national screening programs worldwide. The methodological evaluation applied in this revision is crucial for the corresponding future piggy-back trials to assess routine application of national AAA screening programs.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Mass Screening; Quality-Adjusted Life Years
PubMed: 33086780
DOI: 10.23736/S0392-9590.20.04547-2 -
Vascular Jun 2016To identify patients who are under higher threat for migration because of an old generation stent graft application. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To identify patients who are under higher threat for migration because of an old generation stent graft application.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was undertaken to identify all studies which included older generation endografts and data reporting on graft migration after EVAR. Outcome data were pooled and combined, and were calculated using fixed or random effects models.
RESULTS
From 2000 to 2014, 22 retrospective studies were identified reporting on stent- graft migration after EVAR (8.6%). From those patients, 39% received re-intervention with the mean time of identification ranging from 12 to 36 months. Six of these retrospective nonrandomized studies were eligible for meta-analysis. AAA diameter (AAA diameter: 0.719 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.00065-1.4384 mm; p = 0.00497) and neck length (neck length: 4.36 mm; 95% CI: 1.3277-7.394; p = 0.0048) were the only significant factors associated with stent- graft migration. Neck diameter and neck angulation did not have any important influence on stent-graft migration.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with large AAA and short necks who were treated with older generation stent grafts such as AneurX and Talent are in higher risk for endograft migration than others. Stent- graft migration consists of an insidious and underestimated threat.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Endovascular Procedures; Female; Foreign-Body Migration; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Prosthesis Design; Reoperation; Risk Factors; Stents; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26056151
DOI: 10.1177/1708538115590065