-
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Vascular Information Specialist also searched clinical trials databases (August 2017) for details of ongoing or unpublished studies.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 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia May 2018Cerebrospinal-fluid (CSF) drainage is recommended by current guidelines for spinal protection during open and endovascular repairs of thoracic and thoraco-abdominal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Cerebrospinal-fluid drain-related complications in patients undergoing open and endovascular repairs of thoracic and thoraco-abdominal aortic pathologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Cerebrospinal-fluid (CSF) drainage is recommended by current guidelines for spinal protection during open and endovascular repairs of thoracic and thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms. In the published literature, great variability exists in the rate of CSF-related complications and morbidity. Herein, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the incidence of CSF drainage-related complications, and compare the complication rates between open and endovascular repairs.
METHODS
The systematic review was conducted according to the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Thirty-four studies (4714 patients) were included in the quantitative analysis. The CSF drainage-related complications were categorised as mild, moderate, and severe. Pooled event rates for each complication category were estimated using a random-effect model. Random-effect uni- and multivariable meta-regression analyses were used to assess the effect of aortic-repair approach (open vs endovascular) and the CSF drainage criteria on CSF drainage-related complications.
RESULTS
The pooled event rates were 6.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.3-9.8%] for overall complications, 2% (95% CI: 1.1-3.4%) for minor complications, 3.7% (95% CI: 2.5-5.6%) for moderate complications, and 2.5% (95% CI: 1.6-3.8%) for severe complications. The drainage-related-mortality pooled event rate was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.6-1.4%). The uni- and multivariable meta-regression analyses showed no difference in complication rates between the open and endovascular approaches, or between the different CSF drainage protocols.
CONCLUSION
The complication rate for CSF drainage is not negligible. Our results help define a more accurate risk-benefit ratio for CSF drain placement at the time of repair of thoracic and thoraco-abdominal aneurysms.
Topics: Aorta, Thoracic; Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic; Drainage; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29661408
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2017.12.045 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) (pathological enlargement of the aorta) is a condition that can occur as a person ages. It is most commonly seen in men older than 65... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) (pathological enlargement of the aorta) is a condition that can occur as a person ages. It is most commonly seen in men older than 65 years of age. Progressive aneurysm enlargement can lead to rupture and massive internal bleeding, which is fatal unless timely repair can be achieved. Despite improvements in perioperative care, mortality remains high (approximately 50%) after conventional open surgical repair. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), a minimally invasive technique, has been shown to reduce early morbidity and mortality as compared to conventional open surgery for planned AAA repair. More recently emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) has been used successfully to treat ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA), proving that it is feasible in select patients; however, it is unclear if eEVAR will lead to significant improvements in outcomes for these patients or if indeed it can replace conventional open repair as the preferred treatment for this lethal condition. This is an update of the review first published in 2006.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the advantages and disadvantages of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) in comparison with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). This will be determined by comparing the effects of eEVAR and conventional open surgical repair on short-term mortality, major complication rates, aneurysm exclusion (specifically endoleaks in the eEVAR treatment group), and late complications.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (last searched June 2016), CENTRAL (2016, Issue 5), and trials registries. We also checked reference lists of relevant publications.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in which participants with a clinically or radiologically diagnosed RAAA were randomly allocated to eEVAR or conventional open surgical repair.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies identified for potential inclusion for eligibility. Two review authors also independently completed data extraction and quality assessment. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. We performed meta-analysis using fixed-effect models with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data and mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four randomised controlled trials in this review. A total of 868 participants with a clinical or radiological diagnosis of RAAA were randomised to receive either eEVAR or open surgical repair. Overall risk of bias was low, but we considered one study that performed randomisation in blocks by week and performed no allocation concealment and no blinding to be at high risk of selection bias. Another study did not adequately report random sequence generation, putting it at risk of selection bias, and two studies were underpowered. There was no clear evidence to support a difference between the two interventions for 30-day (or in-hospital) mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16; moderate-quality evidence). There were a total of 44 endoleak events in 128 participants from three studies (low-quality evidence). Thirty-day complication outcomes (myocardial infarction, stroke, composite cardiac complications, renal complications, severe bowel ischaemia, spinal cord ischaemia, reoperation, amputation, and respiratory failure) were reported in between one and three studies, therefore we were unable to draw a robust conclusion. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for myocardial infarction, renal complications, and respiratory failure due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias. Odds ratios for complications outcomes were OR 2.38 (95% CI 0.34 to 16.53; 139 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence) for myocardial infarction; OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.21 to 5.42; 255 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence) for renal complications; and OR 3.62 (95% CI 0.14 to 95.78; 32 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence) for respiratory failure. There was low-quality evidence of a reduction in bowel ischaemia in the eEVAR treatment group, but very few events were reported (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.94), and we downgraded the evidence due to imprecision and risk of bias. Six-month and one-year outcomes were evaluated in three studies, but only results from a single study could be used for each outcome, which showed no clear evidence of a difference between the interventions. We rated six-month mortality evidence as of moderate quality due to imprecision (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.98; 116 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions of this review are currently limited by the paucity of data. We found from the data available moderate-quality evidence suggesting there is no difference in 30-day mortality between eEVAR and open repair. Not enough information was provided for complications for us to make a well-informed conclusion, although it is possible that eEVAR is associated with a reduction in bowel ischaemia. Long-term data were lacking for both survival and late complications. More high-quality randomised controlled trials comparing eEVAR and open repair for the treatment of RAAA are needed to better understand if one method is superior to the other, or if there is no difference between the methods on relevant outcomes.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Aortic Rupture; Conversion to Open Surgery; Emergency Treatment; Endoleak; Endovascular Procedures; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intestines; Ischemia; Kidney Diseases; Myocardial Infarction; Postoperative Complications; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Insufficiency
PubMed: 28548204
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005261.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Controversy exists as to whether revascularisation of the left subclavian artery (LSA) confers improved outcomes in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Controversy exists as to whether revascularisation of the left subclavian artery (LSA) confers improved outcomes in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Even though preemptive revascularisation of the LSA has theoretical advantages, including a reduced risk of ischaemic damage to vital organs, such as the brain and the spinal cord, it is not without risks. Current practice guidelines recommend routine revascularisation of the LSA in patients undergoing elective TEVAR where achievement of a proximal seal necessitates coverage of the LSA, and in patients who have an anatomy that compromises perfusion to critical organs. However, this recommendation was based on very low-quality evidence.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the comparative efficacy of routine LSA revascularisation versus either selective or no revascularisation in patients with descending thoracic aortic disease undergoing TEVAR with coverage of the LSA origin.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (June 2015). In addition, the TSC searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CENTRAL (2015, Issue 5)).Trials databases were also searched (June 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We had planned to consider all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine revascularisation of the LSA with selective or no revascularisation, in patients undergoing TEVAR.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the title and abstract of articles identified through literature searches. An independent third review author was consulted in the event of disagreement. We had planned for two review authors to independently extract data and assess the risk of bias of identified trials using the criteria recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any RCTs relevant to our review topic. Therefore, no quantitative analysis was conducted.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
High quality RCT evidence for or against routine or selective revascularisation of the LSA in TEVAR is not currently available. It is not possible to draw conclusions with regard to the optimal management of LSA coverage in TEVAR, and whether routine revascularisation, which was defined as the intervention of interest in our review, confers beneficial effects, as indicated by reduced mortality, cerebrovascular events, and spinal cord ischaemia. This review highlights the need for continued research to provide RCT evidence and define the role of LSA revascularisation in the context of TEVAR with coverage of the LSA.
Topics: Aorta, Thoracic; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Subclavian Artery
PubMed: 27119426
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011738.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2014An abnormal dilatation of the abdominal aorta is referred to as an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Due to the risk of rupture, surgical repair is offered electively to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
An abnormal dilatation of the abdominal aorta is referred to as an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Due to the risk of rupture, surgical repair is offered electively to individuals with aneurysms greater than 5.5 cm in size. Traditionally, conventional open surgical repair (OSR) was considered the first choice approach. However, over the past two decades endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has gained popularity as a treatment option. This article intends to review the role of EVAR in the management of elective AAA.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of EVAR versus conventional OSR in individuals with AAA considered fit for surgery, and EVAR versus best medical care in those considered unfit for surgery. This was determined by the effect on short, intermediate and long-term mortality, endograft related complications, re-intervention rates and major complications.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (January 2013) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2012, Issue 12). The TSC also searched trial databases for details of ongoing or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EVAR with OSR in individuals with AAA considered fit for surgery. and comparing EVAR with best medical care in individuals considered unfit for surgery. We excluded studies with inadequate data or using an inadequate randomisation technique.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three reviewers independently evaluated trials for appropriateness for inclusion and extracted data using pro forma designed by the Cochrane PVD Group. We assessed the quality of trials using The Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool. We entered collected data in to Review Manager (version 5.2.3) for analysis. Where direct comparisons could be made, we determined odds ratios (OR). We tested studies for heterogeneity and, when present, we used a random-effects model; otherwise we used a fixed-effect model. We tabulated data that could not be collated.
MAIN RESULTS
Four high-quality trials comparing EVAR with OSR (n = 2790) and one high-quality trial comparing EVAR with no intervention (n = 404) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In individuals considered fit for surgery, a pooled analysis, including 1362 individuals randomised to EVAR and 1361 randomised to OSR, found short-term mortality (including 30-day or inhospital mortality, excluding deaths prior to intervention) with EVAR to be significantly lower than with OSR (1.4% versus 4.2%, OR 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.55; P < 0.0001). Using intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) there was no significant difference in mortality at intermediate follow-up (up to four years from randomisation), with 221 (15.8%) and 237 (17%) deaths in the EVAR (n = 1393) and OSR (n = 1390) groups, respectively (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.12; P = 0.40). There was also no significant difference in long-term mortality (beyond four years), with 464 (37.3%) deaths in the EVAR and 470 (37.8%) deaths in the OSR group (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.15; P = 0.78). Similarly, there was no significant difference in aneurysm-related mortality between groups, either at the intermediate- or long-term follow up.Studies showed that both EVAR and OSR were associated with similar incidences of cardiac deaths (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.52; P = 0.36) and fatal stroke rate (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.55; P = 0.52). The long-term reintervention rate was significantly higher in the EVAR group than in the OSR group (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.51; P = 0.02; I(2) = 85%). Results of the reintervention analysis should be interpreted with caution due to significant heterogeneity. Operative complications, health-related quality of life and sexual dysfunction were generally comparable between the EVAR and OSR groups. However, there was a slightly higher incidence of pulmonary complications in the OSR group compared with the EVAR group (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75; P = 0.006).In individuals considered unfit for conventional OSR, the one included trial found no difference between the EVAR and no-intervention groups with regard to all-cause mortality at final follow up, with 21.0 deaths per 100 person-years in the EVAR group and 22.1 deaths per 100 person years in the no-intervention group (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with EVAR 0.99, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.27; P = 0.97). Aneurysm-related deaths were, however, significantly higher in the no-intervention group than in the EVAR group (adjusted HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.89; P = 0.02). There was no difference in myocardial events (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.91) between the groups in this study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In individuals considered fit for conventional surgery, EVAR was associated with lower short-term mortality than OSR. However, this benefit from EVAR did not persist at the intermediate- and long-term follow ups. Individuals undergoing EVAR had a higher reintervention rate than those undergoing OSR. Most of the reinterventions undertaken following EVAR, however, were catheter-based interventions associated with low mortality. Operative complications, health-related quality of life and sexual dysfunction were generally comparable between EVAR and OSR. However, there was a slightly higher incidence of pulmonary complications in the OSR group than in the EVAR group.In individuals considered unfit for open surgery, the results of a single trial found no overall short- or long-term benefits of EVAR over no intervention with regard to all-cause mortality, but individuals may differ and individual preferences should always be taken into account.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Aortic Rupture; Cause of Death; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 24453068
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004178.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2011Cervical cancer is the most common cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Locally advanced cervical cancer, FIGO stage equal or more than IB1 is treated... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cervical cancer is the most common cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Locally advanced cervical cancer, FIGO stage equal or more than IB1 is treated with chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy followed by brachytherapy. If there is metastatic para-aortic nodal disease radiotherapy is extended to additionally cover this area. Due to increased morbidity, ideally extended-field radiotherapy is given only when para-aortic nodal disease is proven. Therefore accurate assessment of the extent of the disease is very important for planning the most appropriate treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pre- treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment for woman with locally advanced cervical cancer (FIGO stage IB2 to IVA).
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to January 2011). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment and dissection with radiological staging techniques, in adult women diagnosed with locally advanced cervical cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently assessed whether potentially relevant trials met the inclusion criteria, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. One RCT was identified so no meta-analyses were performed.
MAIN RESULTS
We found only one trial, which included 61 women, that met our inclusion criteria. This trial reported data on surgical versus clinical staging and an assessment of the two surgical staging techniques; laparoscopic (LAP) versus extraperitoneal (EXP) surgical staging. The clinical staging was either a contrast-enhanced CT scan or MRI scan of the abdomen and pelvis to determine nodal status.In this trial, clinical staging appeared to significantly prolong overall and progression-free survival compared to surgical staging. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of women who experienced severe (grade 3 or 4) toxicity.There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of death, disease recurrence or progression, blood loss, severe toxicity and the duration of the operational procedure between LAP and EXP surgical staging techniques.The strength of the evidence is weak in this review as it is based on one small trial which was at moderate risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
From the one available RCT we found insufficient evidence that pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment for locally advanced cervical cancer is beneficial, and it may actually have an adverse effect on survival. However this conclusion is based on analysis of a small single trial and therefore definitive guidance or recommendations for clinical practice cannot be made.Therefore the decision to offer surgical pre-treatment assessment of para-aortic lymph nodes in locally advanced cervical cancer needs to be individualised. The uncertainty regarding any impact on survival from pre-treatment para-aortic lymph node assessment should be discussed openly with the women.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aorta, Abdominal; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Lymphatic Metastasis; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 21491407
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008217.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2016Epidural analgesia offers greater pain relief compared to systemic opioid-based medications, but its effect on morbidity and mortality is unclear. This review was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Epidural analgesia offers greater pain relief compared to systemic opioid-based medications, but its effect on morbidity and mortality is unclear. This review was originally published in 2006 and was updated in 2012 and again in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of postoperative epidural analgesia in comparison with postoperative systemic opioid-based analgesia for adults undergoing elective abdominal aortic surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
In the updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and five trial registers in November 2014, together with reference checking to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials comparing postoperative epidural analgesia and postoperative systemic opioid-based analgesia for adults who underwent elective open abdominal aortic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information and data when required. We assessed the level of evidence according to the scale provided by the GRADE working group.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials published from 1987 to 2009 with 1498 participants in this updated review. Participants had a mean age between 60.5 and 71.3 years. The percentage of women in the included studies varied from 0% to 28.1%. Adding an epidural to general anaesthesia for people undergoing abdominal aortic repair reduced myocardial infarction (risk ratio (RR) 0.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.97); I(2) statistic = 0%; number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 28 (95% CI 19 to 1423), visual or verbal analogical scale (VAS) scores up to three days after the surgery (mean difference (MD) -1.78 (95% CI -2.32 to -1.25); I(2) statistic = 0% for VAS scores on movement at postoperative day one), time to tracheal extubation (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.42 (95% CI -0.70 to -0.15); I(2) statistic = 83%; equivalent to a mean reduction of 36 hours), postoperative respiratory failure (RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.85); I(2) statistic = 0%; NNTB 8 (95% CI 6 to 16)), gastrointestinal bleeding (OR 0.20 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.65); I(2) statistic = 0%; NNTB 32 (95% CI 27 to 74)) and time spent in the intensive care unit (SMD -0.23 (95% CI -0.41 to -0.06); I(2) statistic = 0%; equivalent to a mean reduction of six hours). We did not demonstrate a reduction in the mortality rate up to 30 days (RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.86); I(2) statistic = 0%). The level of evidence was low for mortality and time before tracheal extubation; moderate for myocardial infarction, respiratory failure and intensive care unit length of stay; and high for gastrointestinal bleeding and VAS scores.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Epidural analgesia provided better pain management, reduced myocardial infarction, time to tracheal extubation, postoperative respiratory failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, and intensive care unit length of stay compared with systemic opioid-based drugs. For mortality, we did not find a difference at 30 days.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics, Opioid; Aorta, Abdominal; Cause of Death; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Time Factors
PubMed: 26731032
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005059.pub4 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2021(1) Background: Perivascular adipose tissue attenuation, measured with computed tomography imaging, is a marker of mean local vascular inflammation since it reflects the... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Perivascular adipose tissue attenuation, measured with computed tomography imaging, is a marker of mean local vascular inflammation since it reflects the morphological changes of the fat tissue in direct contact with the vessel. This method is thoroughly validated in coronary arteries, but few studies have been performed in other vascular beds. The aim of the present study is to provide insight into the potential application of perivascular adipose tissue attenuation through computed tomography imaging in extra-coronary arteries. (2) Methods: A comprehensive search of the scientific literature published in the last 30 years (1990-2020) has been performed on Medline. (3) Results: A Medline databases search for titles, abstracts, and keywords returned 3251 records. After the exclusion of repetitions and the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria and abstract screening, 37 studies were selected for full-text evaluation. Three papers were finally included in the systematic review. Perivascular adipose tissue attenuation assessment was studied in the internal carotid artery, ascending thoracic aorta, and abdominal aorta. (4) Conclusions: Perivascular adipose tissue attenuation seems to be an applicable parameter in all investigated vascular beds, generally with good inter-observer reproducibility.
PubMed: 34441429
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11081495 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an abnormal dilatation of the infradiaphragmatic aorta that is equal to or greater than 30 mm or a local dilatation of equal to or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an abnormal dilatation of the infradiaphragmatic aorta that is equal to or greater than 30 mm or a local dilatation of equal to or greater than 50% compared to the expected normal diameter of the artery. AAAs rarely occur in individuals under 50 years of age, but thereafter the prevalence dramatically increases with age, with men at a six-fold greater risk of developing an AAA than women. Prevalence of AAA has been reported to range from 1.3% in women aged 65 to 80 years to between 4% and 7.7% in men aged 65 to 80 years.There is evidence that the risk of rupture increases as the aneurysm diameter increases from 50 mm to 60 mm. People with AAAs over 55 mm in diameter are therefore generally referred for consideration of repair, as the risk of rupture exceeds the risk of repair. The traditional treatment for AAA is open surgical repair (OSR) which involves a large abdominal incision and is associated with a significant risk of complications. Two less invasive procedures have recently become more widely used: endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and laparoscopic repair. EVAR is carried out through sheaths inserted in the femoral artery in the groin: thereafter, a stent graft is placed within the aneurysm sac under radiological image guidance and anchored in place to form a new channel for blood flow. Laparoscopic repair involves the use of a laparoscope which is inserted through small cuts in the abdomen and the synthetic graft is sewn in place to replace the weakened area of the aorta. Laparoscopic AAA repair falls into two categories: hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS), where an incision is made to allow the surgeon's hand to assist in the repair; and total laparoscopic surgery (TLS). Both EVAR and laparoscopic repair are favourable over OSR as they are minimally invasive, less painful, associated with fewer complications and lower mortality rate and have a shorter duration of hospital stay.Current evidence suggests that elective laparoscopic AAA repair has a favourable safety profile comparable with that of EVAR, with low conversion rates as well as similar mortality and morbidity rates. As a result, it has been suggested that elective laparoscopic AAA repair may have a role in treating those patients for whom EVAR is unsuitable.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of laparoscopic surgery for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.The primary objective of this review was to assess the perioperative mortality and operative time of laparoscopic (total and hand-assisted) surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) compared to traditional open surgical repair or EVAR. The secondary objective was to assess complication rates, all-cause mortality (> 30 days), hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, conversion and re-intervention rates, and quality of life associated with laparoscopic (total and hand-assisted) surgical repair compared to traditional open surgical repair or EVAR.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched August 2016) and CENTRAL (2016, Issue 7). In addition the CIS searched trials registries for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles retrieved by electronic searches for additional citations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials in which patients with an AAA underwent elective laparoscopic repair (total laparoscopic repair or hand-assisted laparoscopic repair) compared with either open surgical repair or EVAR.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Studies identified for potential inclusion were independently assessed for inclusion by at least two review authors.
MAIN RESULTS
One randomised controlled trial with a total of 100 male participants was included in the review. The trial compared hand-assisted laparoscopic repair with EVAR and provided results for in-hospital mortality, operative time, length of hospital stay and lower limb ischaemia. The included study did not report on the other pre-planned outcomes of this review. No in-hospital deaths occurred in the study. Hand-associated laparoscopic repair was associated with a longer operative time (MD 53.00 minutes, 95% CI 36.49 to 69.51) than EVAR. The incidence of lower limb ischaemia was similar between the two treatment groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 5.34). The mean length of hospital stay was 4.2 days and 3.4 days in the hand-assisted laparoscopic repair and EVAR groups respectively but standard deviations were not reported and therefore it was not possible to independently test the statistical significance of this result. The quality of evidence was downgraded for imprecision due to the inclusion of one small study; and wide confidence intervals and indirectness due to the study including male participants only. No study compared laparoscopic repair (total or hand-assisted) with open surgical repair or total laparoscopic surgical repair with EVAR.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic (total and hand-assisted) surgical repair of AAA versus open surgical repair or EVAR, because only one small randomised trial was eligible for inclusion in this review. High-quality randomised controlled trials are needed.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Elective Surgical Procedures; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Operative Time; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28471523
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012302.pub2 -
Annals of Vascular Surgery May 2024Infected aortic grafts and mycotic aneurysms represent one of the most complex challenges faced by vascular surgeons. Treatment has progressed from extra-anatomical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Outcomes Following Use of Bovine Pericardium (Xenoprosthetic) Grafts for Reconstruction of Mycotic Aortic Aneurysms and Infected Aortic Grafts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Infected aortic grafts and mycotic aneurysms represent one of the most complex challenges faced by vascular surgeons. Treatment has progressed from extra-anatomical bypass to in situ reconstruction. Additionally, bovine pericardium reconstruction (BPR) has increased, due to accessibility and reduced lower limb morbidity. There remains, however, limited evidence for its use. The aim is to pool all known data to understand outcomes following BPR of mycotic aneurysms or infected vascular grafts.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted in November 2021 with subsequent computerized meta-analysis of the pooled results and a final search in March 2022. Three databases, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and National Institutes of Health PubMed (PubMed), were searched for the search term "(bovine OR xenoprosthetic) AND (aneurysm)", according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
RESULTS
From 9 studies, there were 133 patients: 67% graft infections and 33% mycotic aneurysms. Fifty-seven percent of reconstructions were in the abdominal aorta and 33% were in the thoracic aorta. One hundred fifty-eight pathogens were identified, including Staphylococcus aureus (23%), Candida albicans (13%), and Escherichia coli (13%). In 12%, no microorganisms were identified. Thirty-day mortality was 19.14% (CI 10.83-28.71), late mortality was 19.08% (confidence interval [CI] 7.76-32.83), and overall mortality was 40.20% (CI 29.82-50.97). One patient died intraoperatively. There were a total of 151 in-hospital complications after 30 days postoperation. Common complications were acute renal failure (17%), pneumonia (14%), delirium (12%), respiratory insufficiency (11%) and renal insufficiency (7%). Lower limb ischemia was low, occurring in 5.66% (CI 0.54-13.82) of patients. Loss of graft patency leading to reintervention occurred in 1.20% (CI 0.00-7.71) of the grafts. Reinfection rate was 0.00% (CI 0.00-1.21).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis highlights low reinfection and high graft patency using BPR with medium-length follow-up; however, there remain limited long-term and comparative data regarding options for aortic reconstruction. As expected in this complex cohort, the complication rate and 30-day mortality remain high.
Topics: Humans; Cattle; Animals; Aneurysm, Infected; Reinfection; Treatment Outcome; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Aorta, Abdominal; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Aortic Aneurysm; Pericardium; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors
PubMed: 38307226
DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2023.11.037