A comparison of endovascular versus open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm - Meta-analysis of propensity score-matched data.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) has been heavily debated in the literature. The aim of this review is to assess comparative outcomes from propensity-matched studies of endovascular versus open for rAAA. METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE and Embase) were searched in January 2021 using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface. Eligible studies compared endovascular versus open repair for rAAA using propensity-matched cohorts. Pooled estimates of perioperative outcomes were calculated using odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model. Time-to-event data meta-analysis was conducted using the inverse-variance method and reported as summary hazard ratio (HR) and associated 95% CI. The quality of evidence was graded using a system developed by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. RESULTS: Six studies published between 2010 and 2020 were selected for qualitative and quantitative synthesis, reporting a total of 6731 patients. The odds of perioperative mortality after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) were significantly lower than after open surgical repair (OSR) (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.41-0.65). The hazard of overall mortality during follow-up was lower, although not significantly, after EVAR than after OSR (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62-1.01). The odds of acute kidney injury and early aneurysm-related reintervention were both significantly lower after EVAR than after OSR (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.78 and OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33-0.98, respectively). Patients treated with EVAR stayed in hospital for significantly less time than those treated with OSR (MD -5.13, 95% CI -7.94 to -2.32). The certainty of the body of evidence for perioperative mortality was low and for overall mortality was very low. CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests that EVAR confers a significant benefit on perioperative mortality.

A Retrospective Two-Year Review of the Outcomes of Surgical Rib Fixation Following Chest Wall Injury by the Multidisciplinary Chest Wall Injury Group in a Major Trauma Centre and the Change in Outcomes as the Service Has Developed.

Aims All English major trauma centres (MTCs) offer rib fixation, which the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance indicates in patients with multiple rib fractures or a flail segment; however, the data does not identify the appropriate patients. Our aims were to establish improvements in outcomes following rib fixation at our trust and then determine if the rib fixation service has improved. Methods We performed a matched cohort study whereby 32 patients who underwent rib fixation were independently matched with conservatively managed patients. We then performed a retrospective re-audit to compare outcomes with the matched cohort study. The outcomes analysed were mortality, critical care length of stay (LOS) and total hospital LOS. Results Our initial study revealed a 33.4% reduction in mortality in patients over 55 years. There was also a reduction in average total hospital LOS by 4.5 days in patients under 55 years when comparing rib fixation to conservative management. The results also revealed an average of 4.1 days from admission to operation, 12.7 days of critical care LOS and 29.1 days of total hospital LOS. The re-audit showed improvements in all outcomes. Time from admission to fixation was reduced to 2.1 days, critical care LOS was reduced to 7.5 days and total hospital LOS was reduced to 20.7 days. Conclusions Reduced mortality and LOS reinforce evidence that rib fixation improves outcomes. The re-audit shows that patients are identified for fixation sooner, which is important as the evidence has not identified optimal time for fixation. LOS further decreased in our re-audit, which indicates that earlier fixation results in patients avoiding the sequelae of rib fractures.

Has Lockdown and COVID-19 Led to a Change in the Characteristics of Deep Vein Thrombosis and Patients Who Are Afflicted With It?

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence identifying coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a significant risk factor for thrombosis in inpatients. However, it remains uncertain if patients in the community have been influenced during the COVID-19 pandemic and national lockdown. This study, across four centres in the United Kingdom (UK), reviewed outpatients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT). AIM: This study aims to find out whether lockdown and COVID-19 led to a change in the characteristics of DVT and patients who are afflicted with it, alongside a review of DVT service. METHODS: Data was collected retrospectively from electronic patient records system for the following periods: April 1 to June 30, 2019, and April 1 to June 30, 2020. These were the key months during the first national lockdown in UK. Data were analysed for patient demographics, risk factors, characteristics of DVT, management, and DVT reoccurrence. Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 8 (Dotmatics, Boston, Massachusetts, United States). RESULTS: During the study periods, 227 outpatients from the community sustained DVT in 2019 and 211 in 2020. Of these patients, 13 in 2020 were COVID-19 positive. There was a difference in gender distribution with 128 males and 99 females in 2019, and 93 males and 118 females in 2020 (p= 0.0128). No significant difference was noted in the incidence of thrombophilia with nine in 2019 and three in 2020 (p=0.1437). Fewer long-haul journeys were made in 2020 (only two), compared to 16 in 2019 (p=0.012). Fewer patients had immobility as a risk factor in 2020 (n=55) compared to 2019 (n=79) (p=0.0494). However, there were more patients using oral contraceptive pills, with one in 2019 and nine in 2020 (p=0.0086) . CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in the characteristics, extent, and management of DVT prior to and during the COVID-19 lockdown. National lockdowns do not affect DVT in the community; however, it is important to highlight the surrounding inpatient numbers.