Predictive value of frailty in the mortality of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: The present study aimed to analyze the impact of frailty on mortality risk among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Literature searches were conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for articles reporting the association between frailty and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate the pooled effects. Results: A total of 21 studies with 26,652 hospitalized patients were included. Sixteen studies used the Clinical Frailty Score (CFS), and five used other frailty assessment tools. The pooled estimates of frailty in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were 51.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 39.9-62.9%]. In the CFS group, frail patients experienced a higher rate of short-term mortality than non-frail patients [odds ratio (OR) =3.0; 95% CI: 2.3-3.9; I2=72.7%; P<0.001]. In the other tools group, frail patients had a significantly increased short-term mortality risk compared with non-frail patients (OR =2.4; 95% CI: 1.4-4.1; P=0.001). Overall, a higher short-term mortality risk was observed for frail patients than non-frail patients (OR =2.8; 95% CI: 2.3-3.5; P<0.001). In older adults, frail patients had a higher rate of short-term mortality than non-frail patients (OR =2.3; 95% CI: 1.8-2.9; P<0.001). Conclusions: Compared to non-frail hospitalized patients with COVID-19, frail patients suffered a higher risk of all-cause mortality, and this result was also found in the older adult group.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes Following Endovascular and Open Repair for Infective Native Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to demonstrate the clinical outcomes of open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for infective native aortic aneurysms (INAAs). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were searched for articles reporting OSR and/or EVAR repair of INAA. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Moga-Score. Random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled measures. RESULTS: A total of 34 studies were included, with 22 studies reporting OSR alone, 6 studies reporting EVAR alone and 6 comparative studies for INAAs. The pooled estimates of infection-related complications (IRCs) were 8.2% (95% CI 4.9%-12.2%) in OSR cohort and 23.2% (95% CI 16.1%-31.0%) in EVAR cohort. EVAR was associated with a significantly increased risk of IRCs compared with OSR during follow-up (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.7). As for survival outcomes, the summary estimate rate of all cause 30-day, 3-month and 1-year mortality in OSR cohort were 11.7% (95% CI 7.7%-16.1%), 21.6% (95%CI 16.3%-27.4%) and 28.3% (95% CI 20.5%-36.7%; I2=50.47%), respectively. For EVAR cohort, the summary estimate rate of all cause 30-day, 3-month and 1-year mortality were 4.9% (95% CI 1.1%-10.4%), 9.4% (95% CI 2.7%-18.7%) and 22.2% (95% CI 12.4%-33.7%), respectively. EVAR was associated with a significantly decreased of 30-day mortality (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.6). However, no difference was found between EVAR and OSR in 3-month (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0-1.1), 1-year all-cause mortality (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.1-1.1) or aneurysm-related mortality (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.5-3.9). Moreover, no difference of incidence of reintervention was observed (OR 2.6, 95% CI 0.9-7.7; I2=53.7%) between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR could provide better short-term survival than OSR in patients with INAAs. However, patients undergoing EVAR suffered from higher risks of IRCs. EVAR could be considered as an alternative for low-risk patients with well-controlled infections or patients considered high-risk for open reconstruction.

Meta-analysis of outcomes after intentional coverage of celiac artery in thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to demonstrate the clinical outcomes of intentional coverage of the celiac artery (CA) during thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR). METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies reporting coverage of CA during TEVAR. The methodologic quality of the included studies was assessed using the Moga score and Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A random effects model was used to pool the estimates. A meta-analysis was performed with investigation of the following outcomes: visceral ischemia, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), stroke, endoleak, reintervention, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies with 171 patients were included. The summary estimate rate of visceral ischemia events was 4.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-8.9%; I2 = 4.1%). The incidence of stroke and SCI was 0.2% (95% CI, 0%-3.4%; I2 = 0%) and 3% (95% CI, 0.3%-7.4%; I2 = 6.1%). The rate of endoleak during the follow-up period was 24.1% (95% CI, 14.3%-35.1%; I2 = 20.0%). The reintervention rate was 13.6% (95% CI, 4.4%-25.7%; I2 = 66.0%). The 30-day and 1-year mortality were 2.9% (95% CI, 0.3%-7.2%; I2 = 6.2%) and 15.2% (95% CI, 7.8%-23.9%; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Among the patients with complex thoracic aortic pathologies deemed at high risk for open reconstruction, TEVAR with intentional coverage of the CA is a safe and feasible option to extend the distal sealing zone with acceptable rates of visceral ischemia, SCI, type II endoleak from the CA, and 30-day mortality.

Frailty as a predictor of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of frailty assessed by the modified Frailty Index (mFI) on major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in the elderly patients after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of elderly patients who underwent EVAR in a tertiary hospital. The main exposure was frailty status assessed by the mFI. The primary outcomes were 30-day and long-term MACCE. The predictive ability of the mFI was compared with the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) using net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) statistics. RESULTS: Of 749 participants, 134 (17.89%) were identified as frail and 185 (24.70%) as prefrail. Thirteen patients (1.74%) were lost in follow-up after surgery, and the median length of follow-up was 32.00 months (range, 15.00-59.25 months). Frailty was associated with a significantly increased risk of 30-day MACCE (adjusted odds ratio OR, 14.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.59-46.04; P < .0001) and longer intensive care unit stay (adjusted odds ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.17-5.07; P = .0176). As for long-term outcomes, both frailty and prefrailty were associated significantly increased risks of MACCE after EVAR (prefrail: adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.71; 95% CI, 1.12-2.61; frail: adjusted HR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.86-6.10). When considering death as a competing risk, we also observed a significant association between frailty and cardiac and cerebrovascular events (adjusted HR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.06-8.15). In addition, frailty was associated with a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.28-2.90). Compared with the RCRI, the mFI had better discrimination in predicting 30-day MACCE (IDI: 0.225; 95% CI, 0.018-0.431; P = .033; NRI: 0.225; 95% CI, 0.023-0.427; P = .029) and long-term MACCE (IDI: 0.056; 95% CI, 0.018-0.128; P = .013; NRI: 0.237; 95% CI, 0.136-0.359; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty assessed by the mFI may serve as a useful predictor of both short-term and long-term MACCE in elderly patients after EVAR, with improved discrimination and reclassification abilities compared with the RCRI.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Current Literature on Isolated Abdominal Aortic Dissection.

OBJECTIVE: To present the pooled quantitative evidence of basic profiles, initial treatment strategies, and clinical outcomes in patients with isolated abdominal aortic dissection (IAAD). METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of all available studies reporting IAAD, retrieved from the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Databases. The logistic normal random effect model was fitted using the generalised linear mixed model with random intercepts to calculate the pooled proportion estimates. RESULTS: Seventeen studies with 482 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Male smokers with hyperlipidaemia and hypertension were the most prominent basic profile. IAADs were predominantly spontaneous and infrarenal, and roughly half were acute and symptomatic. Approximately 67% [95% confidence interval (CI) 42-86%] of patients were managed initially conservatively. In the overall population, the 30 day all cause mortality was 3% (95% CI 1-5%) and the long term mortality during follow up was 8% (95% CI 5-14%). Re-intervention during follow up occurred in 8% (95% CI 5-15%) of patients. In the subgroup analysis, patients with conservative treatment had a 30 day mortality of 1% (95% CI 0-8%), a long term mortality of 5% (95% CI 1-29%), and a re-intervention rate of 18% (95% CI 10-29%). Patients with open surgery had a 30 day mortality of 9% (95% CI 0-82%), a long term mortality of 12% (95% CI 4-31%), and a re-intervention rate of 9% (95% CI 1-44%). Patients with endovascular repair had a 30 day mortality of 2% (95% CI 0-10%), a long term mortality of 5% (95% CI 2-13%), a re-intervention rate of 6% (95% CI 3-13%), and a persistent endoleak rate of 4% (95% CI 2-10%). CONCLUSION: Appropriate initial treatment strategies can be used to obtain acceptable clinical outcomes in patients with IAAD. Invasive intervention is necessary if patients match certain indications for intervention. Regular imaging surveillance should be provided for all patients, especially those treated conservatively.