Local Versus General Anesthesia in Nonemergency Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the perioperative clinical outcomes in using local/regional anesthesia (LA/RA) or general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. A comprehensive electronic literature search was undertaken from inception to September 2018, identifying all randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing LA/RA versus GA in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm who underwent endovascular repair. A total of 12,024 patients (n = 1,664 LA/RA, n = 10,360 GA) were analyzed from 12 observational studies included in this analysis. No difference in mean age between LA/RA and GA group was noted (73.8 ± 7.8 y v 72.4 ± 7.6 y, 95% confidence interval 0.85 [-0.08 to 1.79]; p = 0.07). No differences in preoperative rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grades were noted between the 2 groups (p = 0.21, p = 0.85, p = 0.46, and p = 0.67, respectively). Shorter total surgical time in LA/RA patients was reported (135 ± 40 min v 164 ± 43 min; p < 0.00001). Shorter hospital stay was observed in LA/RA patients (3.6 ± 3.3 d v 4.6 ± 5 d; p = 0.002). No difference in cardiac or renal complications was noted between the LA/RA and GA groups postoperatively (2.7% v 2.5%; p = 0.46 and 1.2% v 1.6%; p = 0.13). Similarly, no difference in vascular complications was noted in LA/RA versus GA patients (8.4% v 7.7%; p = 0.44). Thirty-day morality was not different between the 2 cohorts (2% v 1.7%; p = 0.97). Use of LA/RA in selective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair procedures provides satisfactory and comparable perioperative outcomes with those of GA, with the advantage of a shorter hospital stay. A large randomized controlled trial or multicenter study is required to confirm the present study's findings.

Assessing the use of magnetic resonance imaging virtopsy as an alternative to autopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The post mortem examination or autopsy is a trusted method of identifying the cause of death. Patients and their families may oppose an autopsy for a variety of reasons, including fear of mutilation or owing to religious and personal beliefs. Imaging alternatives to autopsy have been explored, which may provide a viable alternative. OBJECTIVE: To explore the possibility of using MRI virtopsy to establish the cause of death as an alternative to the traditional post mortem examination or autopsy. METHODS: Systematic review was carried out of all studies, without language restriction, identified from Medline, Cochrane (1960-2016) and Embase (1991-2016) up to December 2016. Further searches were performed using the bibliographies of articles and abstracts. All studies reporting the diagnosis of the cause of death by both MRI virtopsy and traditional autopsy were included. RESULTS: Five studies with 107 patients, contributed to a summative quantitative outcome in adults. The combined sensitivity of MRI virtopsy was 0.82 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.94) with a diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 11.1 (95% CI 2.2 to 57.0). There was no significant heterogeneity between studies (Q=1.96, df=4, p=0.75, I2=0). Eight studies, with 953 patients contributed to a summative quantitative outcome in children. The combined sensitivity of MRI virtopsy was 0.73 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.84) with a DOR of 6.44 (95% CI 1.36 to 30.51). There was significant heterogeneity between studies (Q=34.95, df=7, p<0.01, I2=80). CONCLUSION: MRI virtopsy may offer a viable alternative to traditional autopsy. By using MRI virtopsy, a potential cost reduction of at least 33% is feasible, and therefore ought to be considered in eligible patients.

Retrograde Ureteral Stents Versus Percutaneous Nephrostomy in the Management of Malignant Ureteral Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes in cancer patients with ureteral obstruction by comparison of retrograde stenting and percutaneous nephrostomy techniques. METHODS: Systematic review of all studies up to October 2023. Studies were identified from all major databases including MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE. All comparative studies between retrograde stenting and percutaneous nephrostomy were searched; studies with paediatric populations were excluded. Primary outcomes were procedure and intervention failure rates; secondary outcomes were infection, blockage, displacement, and unplanned exchange rates along with procedure time and length of stay. RESULTS: Eighteen studies with 1228 patients contributed to the summative outcome. Percutaneous nephrostomy was statistically superior to retrograde stenting for procedure failure rate (P <.00001) and intervention failure rate (P =.0004). Retrograde stenting was statistically superior to percutaneous nephrostomy for displacement rates (P = .003), procedure time (P <.00001), and length of stay (P <.00001). Retrograde stenting showed no difference to percutaneous nephrostomy for infection rates (P = .94), blockage rates (P = .93), unplanned exchange rates (P = .48), CONCLUSION: There is no absolute superiority for retrograde stenting or percutaneous nephrostomy for malignant ureteral obstruction. Both techniques have their advantages and disadvantages, with some comparable outcomes; patients are key when selecting the best technique. Larger studies are required to assess the outcomes of both techniques.

The Role of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) of Thoracic Aortic Diseases in Patients with Connective Tissue Disorders - A Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the currently available literature to define the role of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with connective tissue disorders (CTD). METHODS: A comprehensive electronic database search was performed in PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, Google scholar, and OVID to identify all the articles that reported on outcomes of utilizing TEVAR in patients with CTD during elective and emergency settings. The search was not limited to time or language of the published study. RESULTS: All the relevant studies have been summarized in its correspondence section. The outcomes were analyzed in narrative format. The role of TEVAR has been elaborated as per each study. Currently, there is limited large cohort size studies outlining the use of TEVAR in patients with CTD. The use of endovascular repair in patients with CTD is limited due to progressive aortic dilatations and high possibility of further reinterventions at later stage of life. CONCLUSION: Open repair remains the gold standard method of intervention in young patients with progressive CTD, especially in the setting of acute type A aortic dissection. However, TEVAR can be sought as a reliable alternative in emergency setting of diseases involving the descending thoracic aorta; yet the long-term data needs to be published to support such practice.

The role of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (tevar) of thoracic aortic diseases in patients with connective tissue disorders - a literature review

Abstract Objective: To review the currently available literature to define the role of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with connective tissue disorders (CTD). Methods: A comprehensive electronic database search was performed in PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, Google scholar, and OVID to identify all the articles that reported on outcomes of utilizing TEVAR in patients with CTD during elective and emergency settings. The search was not limited to time or language of the published study. Results: All the relevant studies have been summarized in its correspondence section. The outcomes were analyzed in narrative format. The role of TEVAR has been elaborated as per each study. Currently, there is limited large cohort size studies outlining the use of TEVAR in patients with CTD. The use of endovascular repair in patients with CTD is limited due to progressive aortic dilatations and high possibility of further reinterventions at later stage of life. Conclusion: Open repair remains the gold standard method of intervention in young patients with progressive CTD, especially in the setting of acute type A aortic dissection. However, TEVAR can be sought as a reliable alternative in emergency setting of diseases involving the descending thoracic aorta; yet the long-term data needs to be published to support such practice.