-
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 -
European Journal of Vascular and... Jul 2019Native and aortic graft infections are rare, but they represent one of the most life threatening complications of vascular surgery. Several materials and surgical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Native and aortic graft infections are rare, but they represent one of the most life threatening complications of vascular surgery. Several materials and surgical approaches have been developed so far. Among them, cryopreserved allografts have been proposed as a treatment option. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the role of cryopreserved allografts for arterial reconstruction after aorto-iliac infection.
METHODS
The current meta-analysis was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Patient baseline characteristics were investigated, along with 30 outcomes after use of cryopreserved arterial allografts for reconstruction after aorto-iliac infection. Pooled proportions with 95% CIs of outcome rates were calculated.
RESULTS
A total of 31 studies, including 1,377 patients, finally participated in the meta-analysis. Among the early outcomes, 30 day mortality was 14.91% (95% CI 11.78-18.31). Peri-anastomotic rupture/allograft disruption rate was 5.90% (95% CI 2.77-9.88), while pooled aneurysmal degeneration/allograft dilatation was 4.99% (95% CI 1.60-9.68). A pooled rate of 3.11% (95% CI 1.60-4.98) was estimated for pseudoaneurysm formation after the use of cryopreserved arterial allografts, while the allograft thrombotic/stenotic complication rate and peri-anastomotic infection were 12.19% (95% CI 7.90-17.15) and 3.32% (95% CI 1.90-5.03), respectively. Mortality during follow up was 19.24% (95% CI 11.97-27.58), while allograft related mortality during follow up was 3.58% (95% CI 1.56-6.15). A pooled allograft related re-operation rate was estimated at 24.87% (95% CI 17.89-32.51).
CONCLUSIONS
The use of cryopreserved allograft seems to be a safe and durable option with acceptable outcomes for treatment of aorto-iliac infection.
Topics: Allografts; Aneurysm, Infected; Aorta, Abdominal; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Cryopreservation; Humans; Organ Preservation; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Reoperation; Transplantation, Homologous; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31202580
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.03.003 -
European Journal of Vascular and... Aug 2019Aortic graft infection (AGI) is a disastrous complication with an incidence of 0.2-6% in operated patients. With little or no high quality evidence, the best treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Aortic graft infection (AGI) is a disastrous complication with an incidence of 0.2-6% in operated patients. With little or no high quality evidence, the best treatment option remains unclear. Therefore, the literature on the management of open abdominal AGI was systematically reviewed to determine optimal treatment.
METHODS
In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted for AGI. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. Methodological quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-randomised Studies (MINORS) score. Primary outcomes were 30 day mortality and one year survival. Secondary outcomes were survival, infection recurrence, limb salvage, and graft patency.
RESULTS
Of 1574 studies identified, 32 papers were included in the study. The overall quality of the studies was moderate, with an average MINORS score of 11.9. Pooled overall 30 day mortality and one year survival were 13.5% (95% CI 10.5-16.4) and 73.6% (95% CI 68.8-78.4), respectively. The lowest 30 day mortality and highest one year survival were found for in situ repair compared with extra-anatomic repair and for prosthetic grafts compared with venous grafts or arterial allografts. The infection recurrence rate was highest for prosthetic grafts.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of well designed, qualitative comparative studies making conclusive recommendations impossible. The current best available data suggests that partial graft removal should be avoided and the lowest 30 day mortality and best one year survival are achieved with in situ repair using prosthetic grafts. Initiatives such as the MAGIC database to collaboratively collect prospective data are an important step forward in obtaining more solid answers on this topic.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aorta, Abdominal; Arteries; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Female; Humans; Limb Salvage; Male; Middle Aged; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Recurrence; Reoperation; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Patency; Veins
PubMed: 31178356
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.03.013 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Oct 2019Secondary open aortic procedures (SOAP) treat complications of endovascular aneurysm repair, when further endovascular options are exhausted. We aimed at depicting the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Secondary open aortic procedures (SOAP) treat complications of endovascular aneurysm repair, when further endovascular options are exhausted. We aimed at depicting the state of the art of SOAP with high-level evidence.
METHODS
A systematic review of the SOAP literature, with a meta-analysis of its outcomes (primary outcome operative mortality; secondary outcome major morbidity) and metaregression of risk factors for mortality (PROSPERO 42017075631).
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies (1093 patients) were elected for analysis. SOAP was performed within the same hospitalization of or 30 days from domestic endovascular aneurysm repair (early SOAP) in 0.2% of the patients (85/40,256), and in a nonelective setting in 24.3% (95% confidence interval, 21.8-26.9). Most frequent indications were endoleak (44.4%; 95% confidence interval, 41.4-47.3) and rupture (12.7%; 95% confidence interval, 10.4-15.1). The most common procedures were infrarenal aortic replacement (85.2%; 95% confidence interval, 82.6-87.7) with high use of supravisceral clamping (suprarenal, 25% [95% confidence interval, 21.9-28.1] and supraceliac, 20.7% [95% confidence interval, 17.8-23.6]), and axillobifemoral bypass with stent explant (6.9%; 95% confidence interval, 5.1-8.7). Operative mortality (in-hospital or 30-day) was 10.9% (95% confidence interval, 8.7-13.5). The most frequent morbidities were respiratory (11.4%; 95% confidence interval, 8.1-15.9) and renal (9.5%; 95% confidence interval, 8.1-15.9). Risk factors for mortality were supravisceral clamping (Z = 3.007; Q = 9.044; P = .003) and nonelective status (Z = 3.382; Q = 11.440; P = .001).
CONCLUSIONS
Endoleak is the main indication for SOAP, which mostly consists of infrarenal aortic replacement. Risk factors for operative mortality are nonelective status and supravisceral clamping.
Topics: Aged; Aorta, Abdominal; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Endoleak; Endovascular Procedures; Female; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Male; Reoperation; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31147115
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.01.092 -
Asian Journal of Surgery Oct 2019To provide a meta-analysis of studies evaluating long-term all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality and re-intervention after open or endovascular repair for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To provide a meta-analysis of studies evaluating long-term all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality and re-intervention after open or endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Electronic bibliographic sources were interrogated using a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary searches to identify studies comparing the long-term outcomes of open and endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards. Fixed effect or random effects models were used. We retrieved 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 2,783 patients), 7 nonrandomized trials (86,035 patients). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Heterogeneity was high and publication bias could not be excluded. Despite these limitations, the analysis showed that open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair had similar all-cause mortality (OR 1.16, 95% CI, 0.89-1.51) over 5 years follow up, which was maintained after at least 10 years of follow-up (OR 0.87, 95% CI, 0.73-1.03). There was no significant difference in aneurysm-related mortality by 5 years or longer follow-up. A significantly lower proportion of patients undergoing open repair required reintervention (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24-0.64), which was maintained over 5 years of follow-up. There is no long-term survival difference between the patients who underwent open or endovascular aneurysm repair. There is significantly higher risk of reinterventions after endovascular aneurysm repair.
Topics: Aorta, Abdominal; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Databases, Bibliographic; Endovascular Procedures; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Risk; Survival Rate; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 30914154
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2019.01.014 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery May 2019Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) represent a significant burden of disease worldwide, and their rupture, without treatment, has an invariably high mortality rate.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) represent a significant burden of disease worldwide, and their rupture, without treatment, has an invariably high mortality rate. Whereas some risk factors for ruptured AAAs (rAAAs) are well established, such as hypertension, smoking, and female sex, the impact of seasonal and meteorologic variables is less clear. We systematically reviewed the literature to determine whether these variables are associated with rAAA.
METHODS
Review methods were according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We calculated pooled proportions and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for the different months and seasons. Funnel plots were constructed to assess for publication bias. Given the poor methodologic quality of included studies, a sensitivity analysis was performed on better-quality studies, which scored 6 and above of 9 in the author-modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
The pooled proportion of rAAA was highest in the autumn season (incidence rate, 26.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 25.6%-27.7%; I = 15.4%), followed by winter (incidence rate, 26.2%; 95% CI, 24.1%-28.2%; I = 72.4%), and lowest in summer (incidence rate, 21.1%; 95% CI, 19.3%-23.0%; I = 70.4%). The IRRs of rAAA were -6.9% (95% CI, -9.8% to -3.9%), -19.5% (95% CI, -22% to -16.8%), +10.5% (95% CI, 7.2%-13.9%), and +18.1% (95% CI, 15%-22%) in spring, summer, autumn, and winter compared with the remaining seasons, respectively (all P < .0001), thus affirming existence of seasonal variation. The pooled proportion of rAAA was highest in December (incidence rate, 8.9%; 95% CI, 7.1%-10.9%; I = 54.5%) but lowest in July (incidence rate, 5.7%; 95% CI, 4.2%-7.3%; I = 54.5%). The IRR was significantly the highest in January (IRR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.29; P = .031) but lowest in July (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87; P < .0001). There is also some evidence for a possible association with atmospheric pressure. Associations with temperature and daylight hours, however, are at best speculative.
CONCLUSIONS
Autumn and winter are significantly associated with a higher incidence of rAAAs, and autumn is associated with the highest rupture incidence of all the seasons. However, the inability to appropriately control for other confounding factors known to increase the risk of AAA rupture precludes any additional recommendations to alter current provision of vascular services on the basis of these data.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aortic Aneurysm; Aortic Rupture; Atmospheric Pressure; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Prognosis; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Seasons; Time Factors; Weather
PubMed: 30792059
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.09.030 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Jan 2019Severe obstetric hemorrhage caused by placenta accreta results in significant maternal morbidity and mortality. As a new technology, abdominal aortic balloon occlusion... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Severe obstetric hemorrhage caused by placenta accreta results in significant maternal morbidity and mortality. As a new technology, abdominal aortic balloon occlusion (AABO) is becoming an important treatment for patients with placenta accreta. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of AABO, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of previous studies.
METHODS
We used a three-check subset including placenta accreta (placenta previa, percreta, increta, etc.), balloon, and aortic (aortas, aorta, etc.) to form a retrieval formula and searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov and Web of Science. All articles regarding placenta previa or placenta accreta and including the use of abdominal aortic balloon occlusion were included in our screening. Two researchers selected articles and extracted data independently. Finally, the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used for quality assessments.
RESULTS
We retrieved 776 articles and eventually included 11 clinical studies. Meta-analysis showed that AABO significantly reduced the blood loss volume (MD - 1480 ml, 95% CI -1806 to - 1154 ml, P < 0.001) and blood transfusion volume (MD - 1125 ml, 95% CI -1264 to - 987 ml, P < 0.001). Similarly, obvious reductions in the hysterectomy rate (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.48, P < 0.001), hospitalization duration (MD - 1.35 days, 95% CI -2.40 to - 0.31 days, P = 0.01), and operative time (MD - 29.23 min, 95% CI -46.04 to - 12.42 min, P < 0.001) were observed in the AABO group.
CONCLUSION
The prophylactic use of AABO in patients with placenta accreta is safe and effective.
Topics: Adult; Aorta, Abdominal; Balloon Occlusion; Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Placenta Accreta; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30646863
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2175-0 -
PloS One 2018Abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) has a pretty high incidence in dialysis patients and may be associated with their prognosis. AAC can be assessed by abdominal CT or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) has a pretty high incidence in dialysis patients and may be associated with their prognosis. AAC can be assessed by abdominal CT or X-ray. We determined to investigate whether the occurrence of AAC is associated with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) events in dialysis patients through this meta-analysis and systematic review.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, Medline databases to collect cohort studies investigating whether AAC is associated with all-cause mortality and CV events of patients, and we also searched gray articles and conferences abstracts. Meta-analysis was performed by STATA software. Pooled results were expressed as hazard ratio (HR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Fixed-effect models were used to pool the HR of each trial.
RESULTS
10 studies (2,724 dialysis patients) were identified. The presence of AAC was associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality among dialysis patients (HR, 2.84; 95% CI, 2.03-3.98; I2 = 9.8%; P = 0.354). Meanwhile, there was an association between AAC and increased risk for all CV events (fatal and non-fatal) in patients (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.51-2.76, I2 = 44.6%; P = 0.125). 3 studies presented their endpoint as CV mortality, and the pooled HR was 2.46 (95%CI 1.38-4.40; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.952). There were also 2 studies that reported their primary endpoint as all-cause mortality and CV events, and the pooled HR was 5.72 (95% CI 3.24-10.10; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.453).
CONCLUSIONS
Among patients treated with dialysis, AAC is associated with adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality and CV events (fatal and non-fatal). The abdominal X-ray or CT scan can be used as a useful added method to evaluate the patient's calcification. This may provide reasonable data for estimating the risk of adverse events in dialysis patients, which is helpful in guiding clinical treatment and improving the prognosis of dialysis patients.
Topics: Aorta, Abdominal; Cardiovascular Diseases; Humans; Prognosis; Renal Dialysis; Vascular Calcification
PubMed: 30240443
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204526 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Jul 2018Although follow-up after open surgical and endovascular procedures is generally regarded as an important part of the care provided by vascular surgeons, there are no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Although follow-up after open surgical and endovascular procedures is generally regarded as an important part of the care provided by vascular surgeons, there are no detailed or comprehensive guidelines that specify the optimal approaches with regard to testing methods, indications for reintervention, and follow-up intervals. To provide guidance to the vascular surgeon, the Clinical Practice Council of the Society for Vascular Surgery appointed an expert panel and a methodologist to review the current clinical evidence and to develop recommendations for follow-up after vascular surgery procedures. For those procedures for which high-quality evidence was not available, recommendations were based on observational studies, committee consensus, and indirect evidence. Recognizing that there are numerous published reports on the role of duplex ultrasound for surveillance of infrainguinal vein bypass grafts, the Society commissioned a systematic review and meta-analysis on this topic. The panel classified the strength of each recommendation and the corresponding quality of evidence on the basis of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system: recommendations were graded either strong or weak, and the quality of evidence was graded high, moderate, or low. The resulting recommendations represent a wide variety of open surgical and endovascular procedures involving the extracranial carotid artery, thoracic and abdominal aorta, mesenteric and renal arteries, and lower extremity arterial revascularization. The panel also identified many areas in which there was a lack of high-quality evidence to support their recommendations. This suggests that there are opportunities for further clinical research on testing methods, threshold criteria, and the role of surveillance as well as on the modes of failure and indications for reintervention after vascular surgery procedures.
Topics: Arteries; Consensus; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography, Doppler, Duplex; Vascular Diseases; Vascular Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 29937033
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.04.018 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is the pathological enlargement of the aorta and can develop in both men and women. Progressive aneurysm enlargement can lead to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is the pathological enlargement of the aorta and can develop in both men and women. Progressive aneurysm enlargement can lead to rupture. The rupture of an AAA is frequently fatal and accounts for the death from haemorrhagic shock of at least 45 people per 100,000 population. The outcome of people with ruptured AAA varies among countries and healthcare systems, with mortality ranging from 53% to 90%. Definitive treatment for ruptured AAA includes open surgery or endovascular repair. The management of haemorrhagic shock is crucial for the person's outcome and aims to restore organ perfusion and systolic blood pressure above 100 mmHg through immediate and aggressive fluid replacement. This rapid fluid replacement is known as the normotensive resuscitation strategy. However, evidence suggests that infusing large volumes of cold fluid causes dilutional and hypothermic coagulopathy. The association of these factors may exacerbate bleeding, resulting in a 'lethal triad' of hypothermia, acidaemia, and coagulopathy. An alternative to the normotensive resuscitation strategy is the controlled (permissive) hypotension resuscitation strategy, with a target systolic blood pressure of 50 mmHg to 100 mmHg. The principle of controlled or hypotensive resuscitation has been used in some management protocols for endovascular repair of ruptured AAA. It may be beneficial in preventing blood loss by avoiding the clot disruption caused by the rapid increase in systolic blood pressure; avoiding dilution of clotting factors, platelets and fibrinogen; and by avoiding the temperature decrease that inhibits enzyme activity involved in platelet and clotting factor function. This is an update of a review first published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of controlled (permissive) hypotension resuscitation and normotensive resuscitation strategies for people with ruptured AAA.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (August 2017), the Cochrane Register of Studies (CENTRAL (2017, Issue 7)) and EMBASE (August 2017). The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist also searched clinical trials databases (August 2017) for details of ongoing or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought all published and unpublished randomised controlled trial (RCTs) that compared controlled hypotension and normotensive resuscitation strategies for the management of shock in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed identified studies for potential inclusion in the review. We used standard methodological procedures in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no RCTs that compared controlled hypotension and normotensive resuscitation strategies in the management of haemorrhagic shock in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm that assessed mortality, presence of coagulopathy, intensive care unit length of stay, and the presence of myocardial infarct and renal failure. High quality studies that evaluate the best strategy for managing haemorrhagic shock in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms are required.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Aortic Rupture; Blood Pressure; Humans; Hypotension, Controlled; Resuscitation; Shock, Hemorrhagic; Systole
PubMed: 29897100
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011664.pub3