-
Ontario Health Technology Assessment... 2020Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the conventional treatment for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk. Transcatheter aortic valve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the conventional treatment for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive procedure. We conducted a health technology assessment (HTA) of TAVI for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding TAVI, and patient preferences and values.
METHODS
We used the 2016 Health Quality Ontario HTA on TAVI as a source of eligible studies and performed a systematic literature search for studies published since the 2016 review. Eligible primary studies identified both through the 2016 HTA and through our complementary literature search were used in a de novo analysis. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria.An applicable, previously conducted cost-effectiveness analysis was available, so we did not conduct a primary economic evaluation. We analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding TAVI in people at low surgical risk in Ontario. We also performed a literature survey of the quantitative evidence of preferences and values of patients for TAVI. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) conducted a review to evaluate the qualitative literature on patient and provider preferences and values for TAVI. To contextualize the potential value of TAVI, we spoke with people with severe aortic valve stenosis.
RESULTS
We identified two randomized controlled trials that compared TAVI (transfemoral route) and SAVR in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk. Both studies have an ongoing follow-up of 10 years, but 1-year and limited 2-year follow-up results are currently available. At 30 days, compared with SAVR, TAVI had a slightly lower risk of mortality (risk difference -0.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.5% to -0.1%, GRADE: Moderate) and disabling stroke (risk difference -0.8%, 95% CI -1.8% to -0.2%, GRADE: Moderate), and resulted in more patients with symptom improvement (risk difference 11.8%, 95% CI 8.2% to 15.5%, GRADE: High) and in a greater improvement in quality of life (GRADE: High). At 1 year, TAVI and SAVR were similar with regard to mortality (GRADE: Low), although TAVI may result in a slightly lower risk of disabling stroke (GRADE: Moderate). Both TAVI and SAVR resulted in a similar improvement in symptoms and quality of life at 1 year (GRADE: Moderate). Compared with SAVR, TAVI had a higher risk of some complications and a lower risk of others.Device-related costs for TAVI (about $25,000) are higher than for SAVR (about $6,000). A published cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from an Ontario Ministry of Health perspective showed TAVI to be more expensive and, on average, slightly more effective (i.e., it was associated with more quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) than SAVR. Compared with SAVR, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were $27,196 per QALY and $59,641 per QALY for balloon-expandable and self-expanding TAVI, respectively. Balloon-expandable TAVI was less costly (by $2,330 on average) and slightly more effective (by 0.02 QALY on average) than self-expanding TAVI. Among the three interventions, balloon-expandable TAVI had the highest probability of being cost-effective. It was the preferred option in 53% and 59% of model iterations, at willingness-to-pay values of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY, respectively. Self-expanding TAVI was preferred in less than 10% of iterations. The budget impact of publicly funding TAVI in Ontario is estimated to be an additional $5 to $8 million each year for the next 5 years. The budget impact could be significantly reduced with reductions in the device price.We did not find any quantitative or qualitative evidence on patient preferences and values specific to the low-risk surgical group. Among a mixed or generally high-risk and population, people typically preferred the less invasive nature and the faster recovery time of TAVI compared with SAVR, and people were satisfied with the TAVI procedure. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk and their caregivers perceived that TAVI minimized pain and recovery time. Most patients who had TAVI returned to their usual activities more quickly than they would have if they had had SAVR. Our direct patient and caregiver consultations indicated a preference for TAVI over SAVR.
CONCLUSIONS
Both TAVI (transfemoral route) and SAVR resulted in improved patient symptoms and quality of life during the 1 year of follow-up. The TAVI procedure is less invasive and resulted in greater symptom improvement and quality of life than SAVR 30 days after surgery. The TAVI procedure also resulted in a small improvement in mortality and disabling stroke at 30 days. At 1 year, TAVI and SAVR were similar with regard to mortality, although TAVI may result in a slightly lower risk of disabling stroke. According to the study authors, longer follow-up is needed to better understand how long TAVI valves last and to draw definitive conclusions on the long-term outcomes of TAVI compared with SAVR beyond 1 year.The TAVI procedure might be cost-effective for patients at low surgical risk; however, there is some uncertainty in this result. We estimated that the additional cost to provide public funding for TAVI in people with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk would range from about $5 million to $8 million over the next 5 years.Among a mixed or generally high-risk population, people typically preferred the less invasive nature and the faster recovery time of TAVI compared with SAVR.
Topics: Aged; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Humans; Ontario; Quality of Life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Risk Assessment; Severity of Illness Index; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
PubMed: 33240455
DOI: No ID Found -
Cardiovascular Alterations and Management of Patients With White Coat Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020A large and growing body of literature has focused on the association between "white coat hypertension" (WCH) and the underlying target organ damage. The evidence...
A large and growing body of literature has focused on the association between "white coat hypertension" (WCH) and the underlying target organ damage. The evidence suggests that WCH is may not an entirely benign phenomenon. However, whether patients with WCH should receive antihypertensive drugs is unresolved. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to fully determine the ability of WCH to alter cardiovascular structure and to determine whether patients with WCH could benefit from drug intervention. Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception through 21 Oct 2019. A total of 25 studies (8,100 individuals) were included. In participants with WCH, values of aortic pulse wave velocity, augmentation index, intima-media thickness, interventricular septum thickness, left ventricular posterior wall thickness, and left ventricular mass index were lower than those with sustained hypertension, but greater than those in the normotensive group. Of note, antihypertensive drug therapy did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with WCH. WCH is accompanied by alterations of cardiovascular structure; however, the benefits from antihypertensive therapy are limited.
PubMed: 33041810
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.570101 -
Hellenic Journal of Cardiology : HJC =... 2021Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disease. While two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (2D-TTE) is the standard imaging modality for AS... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance as a complementary method to transthoracic echocardiography for aortic valve area estimation in patients with aortic stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disease. While two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (2D-TTE) is the standard imaging modality for AS assessment, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) offers a reliable and reproducible alternative. The aim of this study was to compare AVA measurements as determined by TTE and CMR in patients with AS.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched to identify studies comparing TTE continuity equation to CMR planimetry for AVA assessment. A meta-analysis of mean difference was conducted by using the random effects model. Sensitivity analysis was performed after excluding studies reporting AVA indexed to body surface area (BSA). Heterogeneity was assessed with I.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies, encompassing 621 patients, were included in our systematic review. In the pooled analysis, measurements of AVA by CMR planimetry were found to be significantly higher than those calculated by the continuity equation in TTE (pooled mean difference: 0.09, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.01, 0.17, and I: 93%). The results remained significant, albeit with moderate heterogeneity this time, after excluding the analysis measurements of AVA indexed to BSA (pooled mean difference: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.13, and I = 61%).
CONCLUSIONS
CMR planimetry slightly overestimates AVA compared to TTE continuity equation. Although, 2D-TTE should be the primary imaging modality for the estimation of AVA, CMR may be useful when there is discrepancy with the clinical assessment or when TTE results are discordant or difficult to obtain.
Topics: Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Echocardiography; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy; Reproducibility of Results; Research Design
PubMed: 32535246
DOI: 10.1016/j.hjc.2020.05.008 -
Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 2020Calcific aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most common form of acquired valvular heart disease needing intervention and our understanding of this disease has evolved...
Calcific aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most common form of acquired valvular heart disease needing intervention and our understanding of this disease has evolved from one of degenerative calcification to that of an active process driven by the interplay of genetic factors and chronic inflammation modulated by risk factors such as smoking, hypertension and elevated cholesterol. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp (a)] is a cholesterol rich particle secreted by the liver which functions as the major lipoprotein carrier of phosphocholine-containing oxidized phospholipids. Lp(a) levels are largely genetically determined by polymorphisms in the LPA gene. While there is an extensive body of evidence linking Lp(a) to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, emerging evidence now suggests a similar association of Lp(a) to calcific AS. In this article, we performed a systematic review of all published literature to assess the association between Lp(a) and calcific aortic valve (AV) disease. In addition, we review the potential mechanisms by which Lp(a) influences the progression of valve disease. Our review identified a total of 21 studies, varying from case-control studies, prospective or retrospective observational cohort studies to Mendelian randomized studies that assessed the association between Lp(a) and calcific AS. All but one of the above studies demonstrated significant association between elevated Lp(a) and calcific AS. We conclude that there is convincing evidence supporting a causal association between elevated Lp(a) and calcific AS. In addition, elevated Lp(a) predicts a faster hemodynamic progression of AS, and increased risk of AV replacement, especially in younger patients. Further research into the clinical utility of Lp(a) as a marker for predicting the incidence, progression, and outcomes of sclerodegenerative AV disease is needed.
Topics: Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Calcinosis; Humans; Lipoprotein(a)
PubMed: 32526213
DOI: 10.1016/j.pcad.2020.06.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of critical end-organ hypoperfusion due to a primary cardiac disorder. For people with refractory CS despite maximal vasopressors,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of critical end-organ hypoperfusion due to a primary cardiac disorder. For people with refractory CS despite maximal vasopressors, inotropic support and intra-aortic balloon pump, mortality approaches 100%. Mechanical assist devices provide mechanical circulatory support (MCS) which has the ability to maintain vital organ perfusion, to unload the failing ventricle thus reduce intracardiac filling pressures which reduces pulmonary congestion, myocardial wall stress and myocardial oxygen consumption. This has been hypothesised to allow time for myocardial recovery (bridge to recovery) or allow time to come to a decision as to whether the person is a candidate for a longer-term ventricular assist device (VAD) either as a bridge to heart transplantation or as a destination therapy with a long-term VAD.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether mechanical assist devices improve survival in people with acute cardiogenic shock.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and Web of Science Core Collection in November 2019. In addition, we searched three trials registers in August 2019. We scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials on people with acute CS comparing mechanical assist devices with best current intensive care management, including intra-aortic balloon pump and inotropic support.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We performed data collection and analysis according to the published protocol. Primary outcomes were survival to discharge, 30 days, 1 year and secondary outcomes included, quality of life, major adverse cardiovascular events (30 days/end of follow-up), dialysis-dependent (30 days/end of follow-up), length of hospital stay and length of intensive care unit stay and major adverse events. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the quality of a body of evidence as it relates to the studies which contribute data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were risk ratios (RR), hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
The search identified five studies from 4534 original citations reviewed. Two studies included acute CS of all causes randomised to treatment using TandemHeart percutaneous VAD and three studies included people with CS secondary to acute myocardial infarction who were randomised to Impella CP or best medical management. Meta-analysis was performed only to assess the 30-day survival as there were insufficient data to perform any further meta-analyses. The results from the five studies with 162 participants showed mechanical assist devices may have little or no effect on 30-day survival (RR of 1.01 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35) but the evidence is very uncertain. Complications such as sepsis, thromboembolic phenomena, bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events were not infrequent in both the MAD and control group across the studies, but these could not be pooled due to inconsistencies in adverse event definitions and reporting. We identified four randomised control trials assessing mechanical assist devices in acute CS that are currently ongoing.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence from this review of a benefit from MCS in improving survival for people with acute CS. Further use of the technology, risk stratification and optimising the use protocols have been highlighted as potential reasons for lack of benefit and are being addressed in the current ongoing clinical trials.
Topics: Acute Disease; Coronary Care Units; Heart-Assist Devices; Humans; Length of Stay; Quality of Life; Renal Dialysis; Shock, Cardiogenic
PubMed: 32496607
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013002.pub2 -
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 -
Vascular Oct 2020Endovascular aneurysm repair has gained field over open surgery for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm. However, type Ia endoleak represents a common... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Endovascular aneurysm repair has gained field over open surgery for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm. However, type Ia endoleak represents a common complication especially in hostile neck anatomy that is recently faced using endoanchors. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to collect and analyse all the available comparative evidence on the outcomes of the endosuture aneurysm repair in patients with or without hostile neck in standard endovascular aneurysm repair.
METHODS
The current meta-analysis was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All the prospective and retrospective studies reporting primary use of the Heli-FX EndoAnchor implants were considered eligible for inclusion in this study. The main study outcomes (technical success of endoanchor implantation, incidence of type Ia endoleak, aortic stent graft migration and the percentage of patients who presented regression or expansion of aneurysm sac throughout the follow-up) were subsequently expressed as proportions and 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
Eight studies with a total of 968 patients were included in a pooled analysis. The technical success of the primary endoanchor fixation was 97.12% (95%CI: 92.98-99.67). During a mean six months follow-up period, a pooled rate of 6.23% (95%CI: 0.83-15.25) of the patients developed a persistent type Ia endoleak despite the primary implantation. Migration of the main graft was reported in five studies, in which a 0.26% (95%CI = 0.00-1.54) of the patients required an additional proximal aortic cuff. Regression of the aneurysm sac was observed at 68.82% (95%CI: 51.02-84.21). An expansion of the aneurysm sac was found in 1.93% (95%CI: 0.91-3.24) of the participants. The overall survival rate was 93.43% (95%CI: 89.97-96.29) at a mean six months follow-up period.
CONCLUSIONS
Endosuture aneurysm repair with the Heli-FX EndoAnchor implants seems to be technically feasible and safe either for prevention or for repair of intraoperative type Ia endoleak. Despite the primary implants of endoanchors, few cases of persistent type Ia endoleak and migration are still conspicuous. Long-term follow up is needed to determinate the role of this therapeutic option in the treatment of aortic aneurysms.
Topics: Aged; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Endoleak; Endovascular Procedures; Female; Foreign-Body Migration; Humans; Male; Prosthesis Design; Risk Factors; Suture Techniques; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32390560
DOI: 10.1177/1708538120923417 -
Ontario Health Technology Assessment... 2020Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a rescue therapy used to stabilize patients with hemodynamic compromise such as refractory cardiogenic shock or cardiac...
BACKGROUND
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a rescue therapy used to stabilize patients with hemodynamic compromise such as refractory cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. When used for cardiac arrest, ECMO is also known as extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). We conducted a health technology assessment of venoarterial ECMO for adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with cardiac arrest refractory to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or with cardiogenic shock refractory to conventional medical management (i.e., drugs, mechanical support such as intra-aortic balloon pump and temporary ventricular assist devices). Our assessment included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding ECMO for these indications, and patient preferences and values.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool for systematic reviews and the Risk of Bias Among Nonrandomized Trials (ROBINS-I) tool for observational studies, and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis with a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding ECMO in Ontario for patients with refractory cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. To contextualize the potential value of ECMO for cardiac indications, we spoke with patients and caregivers with direct experience with the procedure.
RESULTS
We included one systematic review (with 13 observational studies) and two additional observational studies in the clinical review. Compared with traditional CPR for patients with refractory cardiac arrest, ECPR was associated with significantly improved 30-day survival (pooled risk ratio [RR] 1.54; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.30) (GRADE: Very Low) and significantly improved long-term survival (pooled RR 2.17; 95% CI 1.37 to 3.44) (GRADE: Low). Overall, ECPR was associated with significantly improved 30-day favourable neurological outcome in patients with refractory cardiac arrest compared with traditional CPR; pooled RR 2.02 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.16) (GRADE: Very Low). For patients with cardiogenic shock, ECMO was associated with a significant improvement in 30-day survival compared with intra-aortic balloon pump (pooled RR 2.11; 95% CI 1.23 to 3.61) (GRADE: Very Low). Compared with temporary percutaneous ventricular assist devices, ECMO was not associated with improved survival (pooled risk ratio 0.94; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30) (GRADE: Very Low).We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ECPR compared with conventional CPR is $18,722 and $28,792 per life-year gained (LYG) for in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, respectively. We estimated the probability of ECPR being cost-effective versus conventional CPR is 93% and 60% at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per LYG for in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, respectively. We estimate that publicly funding ECMO in Ontario over the next 5 years would result in additional total costs of $1,673,811 for cardiogenic shock (treating 314 people), $2,195,517 for in-hospital cardiac arrest (treating 126 people), and $3,762,117 for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (treating 247 people).The eight patients and family members with whom we spoke had limited ability to assess the impact of ECMO or report their impressions because of their critical medical situations when they encountered the procedure. All had been in hospital with acute hemodynamic instability. In the decision to receive the procedure, participants generally relied on the expertise and judgment of physicians.
CONCLUSIONS
For adults treated for refractory cardiac arrest, ECPR may improve survival and likely improves long-term neurological outcomes compared with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation. For patients treated for cardiogenic shock, ECMO may improve 30-day survival compared with intra-aortic balloon pump, but there is considerable uncertainty.For adults with refractory cardiac arrest, ECPR may be cost-effective compared with conventional CPR. We estimate that publicly funding ECMO for people with cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock in Ontario over the next 5 years would cost about $845,000 to $2.2 million per year.People with experience of ECMO for cardiac indications viewed it as a life-saving device and expressed gratitude that it was available and able to help stabilize their acute medical condition.
Topics: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Heart Arrest; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Shock, Cardiogenic; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 32284771
DOI: No ID Found -
Netherlands Heart Journal : Monthly... May 2020Guidelines suggest using frailty characteristics in the work-up for a transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). There are many frailty-screening tools with... (Review)
Review
Guidelines suggest using frailty characteristics in the work-up for a transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). There are many frailty-screening tools with different components. The prognostic value of the individual parameters in frailty is as yet unclear. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to find and pool predictors for 1‑year mortality after TAVI. We followed a two-step approach. First, we searched for randomised controlled trials on TAVI to identify frailty parameters used in these studies. Second, we searched for publications on these frailty parameters. Articles were included for pooled analysis if the studied frailty parameters were dichotomised with clear cut-off values based on common standards or clinical practice and reported adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of 1‑year mortality after TAVI. We calculated pooled effect estimates of 49 studies based on dichotomised frailty scores (HR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.57-3.00), chronic lung disease (HR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.45-1.70), estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 ml/min (HR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.68-2.29), body mass index <20 kg/m (HR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.09-2.03), hypoalbuminaemia (HR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.38-2.25), anaemia (HR: 2.08, 95% CI: 0.93-4.66), low gait speed (HR: 13.33, 95% CI: 1.75-101.49) and Katz activities of daily living (ADL) score of 1 or more deficits (HR: 5.16, 95% CI: 0.77-34.47). Chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease, underweight, hypoalbuminaemia, a low frailty score, anaemia, low gait speed and an ADL deficiency were associated with worse 1‑year outcomes after TAVI.
PubMed: 32189208
DOI: 10.1007/s12471-020-01379-0 -
VASA. Zeitschrift Fur Gefasskrankheiten Apr 2020The study objective was to evaluate the ability of computed tomography (CT) to identify technical complications intra-operatively during endovascular aneurysm repair... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
The study objective was to evaluate the ability of computed tomography (CT) to identify technical complications intra-operatively during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Frequency of complications seen by CT and their sequelae was compared with conventional completion angiography.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review that conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We considered studies reporting on the effectiveness of intra-operative CT during EVAR.
RESULTS
Our literature search yielded six studies that met our criteria for inclusion. In general, these showed intra-operative CT to be superior to completion angiogram at detecting intra-operative complications during EVAR. Despite concerns regarding irradiation, the use of intra-operative CT was found to expose patients to an overall lower radiation dose, since post-operative CT angiograms were no longer required. Moreover, no adverse effect on renal function has been demonstrated as a result of the increased intra-operative contrast usage when CT is used.
CONCLUSIONS
The current body of evidence suggests that intra-operative CT is superior to completion angiography at detecting clinically important EVAR complications and incurs a lower total radiation dose with no added risk of contrast-induced renal impairment. Further research directly comparing the two modalities in the same cohort is required to determine sensitivity for individual complications.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Aortography; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Endoleak; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31904305
DOI: 10.1024/0301-1526/a000840