-
BMJ Open Dec 2021Patients undergoing surgery for severe aortic stenosis (SAS) can be treated with either transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Patients undergoing surgery for severe aortic stenosis (SAS) can be treated with either transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The choice of procedure depends on several factors, including the clinical judgement of the heart team and patient preferences, which are captured by actively informing and involving patients in a process of shared decision making (SDM). We synthesised the most up-to-date and accessible evidence on the benefits and risks that may be associated with TAVI versus SAVR to support SDM in this highly personalised decision-making process.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Wiley) were searched from January 2000 to August 2020 with no language restrictions. Reference lists of included studies were searched to identify additional studies.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared TAVI versus SAVR in patients with SAS and reported on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, length of stay in intensive care unit or hospital, valve durability, rehospitalisation/reintervention, stroke (any stroke or major/disabling stroke), myocardial infarction, major vascular complications, major bleeding, permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, new-onset or worsening atrial fibrillation (NOW-AF), endocarditis, acute kidney injury (AKI), recovery time or pain were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two independent reviewers were involved in data extraction and risk of bias (ROB) assessment using the Cochrane tool (one reviewer extracted/assessed the data, and the second reviewer checked it). Dichotomous data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects to generate a risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Continuous data were pooled using the inverse-variance method with random-effects and expressed as a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic.
RESULTS
8969 records were retrieved and nine RCTs (61 records) were ultimately included (n=8818 participants). Two RCTs recruited high-risk patients, two RCTs recruited intermediate-risk patients, two RCTs recruited low-risk patients, one RCT recruited high-risk (≥70 years) or any-risk (≥80 years) patients; and two RCTs recruited all-risk or 'operable' patients. While there was no overall change in the risk of dying from any cause (30 day: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.22; ≤1 year: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; 5 years: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.22), cardiovascular mortality (30 day: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.39; ≤1 year: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.06; 2 years: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12), or any type of stroke (30 day: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.14;≤1 year: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.23; 5 years: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.30), the risk of several clinical outcomes was significantly decreased (major bleeding, AKI, NOW-AF) or significantly increased (major vascular complications, PPM implantation) for TAVI vs SAVR. TAVI was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay vs SAVR (MD -3.08 days, 95% CI -4.86 to -1.29; 4 RCTs, n=2758 participants). Subgroup analysis generally favoured TAVI patients receiving implantation via the transfemoral (TF) route (vs non-TF); receiving a balloon-expandable (vs self-expanding) valve; and those at low-intermediate risk (vs high risk). All RCTs were rated at high ROB, predominantly due to lack of blinding and selective reporting.
CONCLUSIONS
No overall change in the risk of death from any cause or cardiovascular mortality was identified but 95% CIs were often wide, indicating uncertainty. TAVI may reduce the risk of certain side effects while SAVR may reduce the risk of others. Most long-term (5-year) results are limited to older patients at high surgical risk (ie, early trials), therefore more data are required for low risk populations. Ultimately, neither surgical technique was considered dominant, and these results suggest that every patient with SAS should be individually engaged in SDM to make evidence-based, personalised decisions around their care based on the various benefits and risks associated with each treatment.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019138171.
Topics: Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Humans; Risk Factors; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34873012
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054222 -
European Journal of Vascular and... 2022Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) is a devastating condition that commonly occurs in healthy and young patients. Endovascular treatment is the first choice; however,... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) is a devastating condition that commonly occurs in healthy and young patients. Endovascular treatment is the first choice; however, it has also been demonstrated to alter cardiovascular haemodynamics. The aim of this systematic review was to describe the cardiovascular modifications after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for BTAI.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched for eligible studies reporting on modifications in aortic stiffness, blood pressure, cardiac mass, and aortic size.
REVIEW METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was followed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies reporting on 265 patients were included. Severe heterogeneity existed among the included studies with regard to demographics, BTAI grade, endograft specifications, reported outcomes, and the method of evaluation. Regarding aortic stiffness, two studies found a significant increase in pulse wave velocity (PWV) in patients after TEVAR compared with a control group, while one did not find a significant increase in PWV and augmentation index after > 3 years of follow up. Five studies reported an increase in the incidence of post-TEVAR hypertension up to 55% (range 34.8% - 55.0%) vs. baseline. One study found a statistically significant increase in left ventricular mass and left ventricular mass index during follow up. Nine studies report data regarding aortic dilatation or remodelling after TEVAR. One found a 2.4 fold faster growth rate in ascending aortic diameter vs. controls, while other studies described significant changes in aortic size at different locations along the aorta and endograft after TEVAR.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review highlights adverse cardiac and aortic modifications after TEVAR for BTAI. The results stress the need for lifelong surveillance in these patients and the necessity of developing a more compliant endograft to prevent cardiovascular complications in the long term.
Topics: Humans; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Endovascular Procedures; Pulse Wave Analysis; Vascular System Injuries; Retrospective Studies; Thoracic Injuries; Wounds, Nonpenetrating; Aorta, Thoracic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35537638
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2022.05.004 -
Cureus Jun 2023Blunt aortic injury is the second most prevalent cause of patient fatalities post-trauma, closely following head injuries as the leading cause. In recent years, thoracic... (Review)
Review
Blunt aortic injury is the second most prevalent cause of patient fatalities post-trauma, closely following head injuries as the leading cause. In recent years, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has evidently improved survival rates and reduced complications in patients suffering from blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI) in comparison to open surgery and non-operative management. It is difficult to characterize the appropriate criteria for the timing of TEVAR, whether early or delayed for BTAI, considering the discrepancies related to timing. Electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase, were searched through April 2023. The primary outcomes were short-term mortality and hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stays. Time to TEVAR, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, deep vein thrombosis, delayed stroke, and renal failure were also evaluated. We included a total of seven studies, comprising 4177 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Short-term mortality was significantly higher in the early TEVAR group (RR: 1.86; 95% confidence interval (CI); (1.26-2.74); p<0.001; I=33%). In contrast, the ICU length of stay was significantly shorter in the early group (mean difference: -2.82 days; 95% CI; (-4.09 - -1.56); p<0.0001; I=55%). There was no significant difference between both groups in the presenting profile or postoperative complications. Patients undergoing delayed TEVAR had markedly lower mortality rates but a longer ICU stay. The need for future studies with more robust designs is imperative to investigate the factors influencing the timing of repair and the associated outcomes.
PubMed: 37519486
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.41078 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... Aug 2021Multiple studies regarding the use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) in patients with non-compressible torso injuries and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in patients with major trauma and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Multiple studies regarding the use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) in patients with non-compressible torso injuries and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock were recently published. To date, the clinical evidence of the efficacy of REBOA is still debated. We aimed to conduct a systematic review assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of REBOA in patients with major trauma and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and CENTRAL up to June 2020. All randomized controlled trials and observational studies that investigated the use of REBOA compared to resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) with/without REBOA or no-REBOA were eligible. We followed the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Two authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias of included studies. Effect sizes were pooled in a meta-analysis using random-effects models. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Primary outcomes were mortality, volume of infused blood components, health-related quality of life, time to haemorrhage control and any adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were improvement in haemodynamic status and failure/success of REBOA technique.
RESULTS
We included 11 studies (5866 participants) ranging from fair to good quality. REBOA was associated with lower mortality when compared to RT (aOR 0.38; 95% CI 0.20-0.74), whereas no difference was observed when REBOA was compared to no-REBOA (aOR 1.40; 95% CI 0.79-2.46). No significant difference in health-related quality of life between REBOA and RT (p = 0.766). The most commonly reported complications were amputation, haematoma and pseudoaneurysm. Sparse data and heterogeneity of reporting for all other outcomes prevented any estimate.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings on overall mortality suggest a positive effect of REBOA among non-compressible torso injuries when compared to RT but no differences compared to no-REBOA. Variability in indications and patient characteristics prevents any conclusion deserving further investigation. REBOA should be promoted in specific training programs in an experimental setting in order to test its effectiveness and a randomized trial should be planned.
Topics: Aorta; Balloon Occlusion; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Injury Severity Score; Shock, Hemorrhagic
PubMed: 34384452
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-021-00386-9 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... Mar 2023Studies on the mortality of blunt abdominal aortic injury (BAAI) are rare and have yielded inconsistent results. In the present study, we aimed to quantitatively analyse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Studies on the mortality of blunt abdominal aortic injury (BAAI) are rare and have yielded inconsistent results. In the present study, we aimed to quantitatively analyse the retrieved data to more accurately determine the hospital mortality of BAAI.
METHODS
The Excerpta Medica Database, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify relevant publications without date restrictions. The overall hospital mortality (OHM) of BAAI patients was set as the primary outcome measure. English publications with data that met the selection criteria were included. The quality of all included studies was assessed by the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and the American Agency for Health Care Quality and Research's cross-sectional study quality evaluation items. After data extraction, a meta-analysis of the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation of data was performed using the Metaprop command in Stata 16 software. Heterogeneity was assessed and reported as a percentage using the I index value and as a P value using the Cochrane Q test. Various methods were used to determine the sources of heterogeneity and to analyse the sensitivity of the computation model.
RESULTS
Of the 2147 references screened, 5 studies that involved 1593 patients met the selection criteria and were included. There were no low-quality references after assessment. One study that only included 16 juvenile BAAI patients was excluded from the meta-analysis of the primary outcome measure due to high heterogeneity. Due to the low heterogeneity (I = 47.6%, P = 0.126 for Q test) that was observed after using the random effects model, the fixed model was subsequently used to pool the effect sizes of the remaining four studies, thus yielding an OHM of 28.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 26.5-31.1%]. The stability of the model was verified by sensitivity analysis, and Egger's test (P = 0.339) indicated a low level of publication bias. In addition, we also performed meta-analyses and obtained a pooled hospital mortality of operation (13.5%, 95% CI 8.0-20.0%), a pooled hospital mortality of non-operation (28.4%, 95% CI 25.9-31.0%), and a pooled rate of aortic rupture (12.2%, 95% CI 7.0-18.5%) of BAAI.
CONCLUSIONS
The present study indicated that BAAI has an OHM of 28.8%, indicating that this disease deserves more attention and research.
Topics: Humans; United States; Hospital Mortality; Cross-Sectional Studies; Aorta, Abdominal; Wounds, Nonpenetrating
PubMed: 36991444
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-023-00492-w -
Biomolecules & Biomedicine May 2024At present, research on blunt abdominal aortic injury (BAAI) is limited, with the majority being case reports. Consequently, there is a significant knowledge gap...
At present, research on blunt abdominal aortic injury (BAAI) is limited, with the majority being case reports. Consequently, there is a significant knowledge gap concerning this condition. To address this, we conducted a systematic review by extensively searching major databases. We included all literature that provided individual (non-identifiable) data on BAAI patients, irrespective of the study design. Furthermore, we undertook regression analyses to identify predictors of death after BAAI. The search yielded 2,099 results, leading to the inclusion of 102 case reports and one conference abstract. Using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for assessment, all studies were deemed of medium to high quality. In total, 133 patients were included, with a median age of 34 years, and 73.7% being male. The predominant clinical manifestation was pain, reported in 65.6% of patients. The most frequently observed aortic lesion severity was grade A (intimal tear or intramural hematoma) at 46.9%, and the most common lesion location was zone III (infrarenal aorta) in 88.3% of cases. The overall mortality after BAAI was 15.3%. Multivariate regression analyses revealed the following predictors of death after BAAI: lower limb ischemia (relative risk [RR] = 7.137, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.154 - 44.161), cardiopulmonary arrest (RR = 10.250, 95% CI 1.452 - 72.344), and injuries to body parts other than the abdomen and lumbar spine (RR = 2.593, 95% CI 1.189 - 5.655). In conclusion, this review provides a detailed quantitative summary of BAAI's clinical manifestations, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis, emphasizing its high mortality rate and identifying three critical variables as predictors of death.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Abdominal Injuries; Aorta, Abdominal; Prognosis; Wounds, Nonpenetrating
PubMed: 37865918
DOI: 10.17305/bb.2023.9831 -
Cureus Sep 2023The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the effect of different independent predictors on acute kidney injury (AKI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation... (Review)
Review
The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the effect of different independent predictors on acute kidney injury (AKI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This meta-analysis adhered to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A comprehensive database search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for the period from January 1, 2015, to August 15, 2023. The following key terms were employed: "transcatheter aortic valve implantation" OR "transcatheter aortic valve replacement" AND "acute kidney injury" OR "acute renal failure." Our search was limited to studies published exclusively in the English language. The statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan version 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration). Estimates were presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for categorical variables, while continuous variables were reported as mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. A total of 19 studies met the selection criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled incidence of AKI was reported as 20% (95% CI: 18-20%). Factors significantly associated with post-TAVI AKI encompass hypertension, chronic kidney disease (CKD), low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), high baseline creatinine levels, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EUROscore) II, and the transfemoral surgical approach.
PubMed: 37842473
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.45131 -
Cureus May 2020Background Acute kidney injury (AKI) following aortic valve replacement is associated with poor prognosis. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a novel...
Background Acute kidney injury (AKI) following aortic valve replacement is associated with poor prognosis. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a novel strategy with a percutaneous approach and early recovery time. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare TAVR to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and their respective renal outcomes. Methods We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using MEDLINE, PUBMED, and Google Scholar databases from their inception till April 6, 2019, and included eight trials comparing TAVR to SAVR in cases that reported AKIs. Results We found a significant reduction in AKI after TAVR compared to SAVR at 30 days [n = 66 vs. n = 160, respectively; odds ratio (OR) = 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.28-0.51; p: <0.00001, I = 0%]. At one year, a trend towards reduced renal failure was noted in the TAVR arm compared to the SAVR arm (n = 74 vs. n = 129, respectively; OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.32-1.01; p = 0.05, I = 69%). Conclusion Based on our findings and analysis, we have concluded that TAVR is associated with significantly reduced renal injury at 30 days when compared to SAVR.
PubMed: 32523841
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.7985 -
EuroIntervention : Journal of EuroPCR... Apr 2017The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the predictors and outcome of acute kidney injury (AKI) after transcatheter aortic valve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the predictors and outcome of acute kidney injury (AKI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).
METHODS AND RESULTS
There were 35 articles recruiting 13,256 patients included in our study. Hypertension (odds ratio [OR] 1.92, 95% CI: 1.44 to 2.56), diabetes mellitus (OR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.47), peripheral artery disease (OR 1.28, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.45) and a left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (OR 1.50, 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.88) were identified as significant independent predictors of AKI. In addition to the aforementioned comorbidities, procedure-related/post-TAVI factors such as transapical access (OR 1.68, 95% CI: 1.44 to 1.97), major bleeding (OR 1.82, 95% CI: 1.37 to 2.40) and transfusion (OR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.51) were also associated with a higher risk of AKI. Importantly, the risk of short-term all-cause death increased progressively with the aggravating severity of AKI (OR, 30 days: stage 1: 3.41; stage 2: 4.0; stage 3: 11.02; one year: stage 1: 1.95; stage 2: 2.82; stage 3: 7.34), as determined by a univariate analysis. After eliminating confounders, AKI remained linked to a higher risk for both short-term (30 days: HR 2.12, 95% CI: 1.59 to 2.83) and long-term (≥3 years: HR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.27 to 1.48) all-cause mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
The reason for the occurrence of AKI was multifactorial, including baseline characteristics, procedure-related and post-TAVI factors. It appeared that even stage 1 AKI exerted detrimental effects on survival within one year, and AKI was also independently linked to mortality beyond three years.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
PubMed: 27890858
DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-15-00254 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Dec 2022In this study, we report our local experience of type A aortic dissections in patients with cerebral malperfusion treated with carotid stenting before or after aortic...
In this study, we report our local experience of type A aortic dissections in patients with cerebral malperfusion treated with carotid stenting before or after aortic surgery, and present a systematic literature review on these patients treated either with carotid stenting (CS) before or after aortic surgery (AS) or with aortic and carotid surgery alone (ACS). We report on patients treated in our center with carotid stenting for brain hemodynamic injury of carotid origin caused by type A dissection since 2018, and a systematic review was conducted in PubMed for articles published from 1990 to 2021. Out of 5307 articles, 19 articles could be included with a total of 80 patients analyzed: 9 from our center, 29 patients from case reports, and 51 patients from two retrospective cohorts. In total, 8 patients were treated by stenting first, 72 by surgery first, and 7 by stenting after surgery. The mean age; initial NIHSS score; time from symptom onset to treatment; post-treatment clinical improvement; post-treatment clinical worsening; mortality rate; follow-up duration; and follow-up mRS were, respectively, for each group (local cohort, CS before AS, ACS, CS after AS): 71.2 ± 5.3 yo, 65.5 ± 11.0 yo; 65.3 ± 13.1 yo, 68.7 ± 5.8 yo; 4 ± 8.4, 11.3 ± 8.5, 14.3 ± 8.0, 0; 11.8 ± 14.3 h, 21 ± 39.3 h, 13.6 ± 17.8 h, 13 ± 17.2 h; 56%, 71%, 86%, 57%; 11%, 28%, 0%, 14%; 25%, 12.3%, 14%, 33%; 5.25 ± 2.9 months, 54 months, 6.8 ± 3.8 months, 14 ± 14.4 months; 1 ± 1; 0.25 ± 0.5, 1.3 ± 0.8, 0.68 ± 0.6. Preoperative carotid stenting for hemodynamic cerebral malperfusion by true lumen compression appears to be feasible, and could be effective and safe, although there is still a lack of evidence due to the absence of comparative statistical analysis. The literature, albeit growing, is still limited, and prospective comparative studies are needed.
PubMed: 36675719
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13010058