Background: While the standard of care for suspected tracheo-innominate artery fistula (TIF) necessitates sternotomy, perioperative mortality remains high. Endovascular interventions have been attempted, but reports have been anecdotal. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the outcomes of endovascular management of TIF by pooling the existing evidence. Methods: An electronic database search of Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was performed to identify all studies examining endovascular treatment of TIF. Patients greater than 14 years of age who underwent endovascular intervention for TIF were included. 25 studies consisting of 27 patients met the inclusion criteria. Results: 48.1% (13/27) of patients were male and median age was 39.0 [IQR 16.0, 47.5] years. Tracheostomy was present in 96.3% (26/27) of cases. Median duration from tracheostomy to TIF presentation was 2.2 months [0.5, 42.5]. On presentation, 84.6% (22/26) had tracheal hemorrhage, and 22.8% (6/27) were hemodynamically unstable. 96.3% (26/27) underwent covered stent graft placement while 1 patient (3.8%) had coil embolization. 18.5% (5/27) of patients required repeat endovascular intervention for recurrent bleeding, while 11.1% (3/27) required rescue sternotomy. Median hospital length of stay was 30 days [16.0, 46.5], and overall mortality was 29.6% (8/27) with a median follow-up time of 5 months [1.2, 11.5]. Conclusion: While uncommon, endovascular treatment of TIF may be a feasible alternative to sternotomy. The approach may be useful in those who are unable to undergo surgery or are likely to have adhesions from prior chest operations.
Treatment of giant cell myocarditis (GCM) can require bridging to orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) or recovery with mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Since the roles of MCS and immunotherapy are not well-defined in GCM, we sought to analyze outcomes of patients with GCM who required MCS. A systematic search was performed in June 2019 to identify all studies of biopsy-proven GCM requiring MCS after 2009. We identified 27 studies with 43 patients. Patient-level data were extracted for analysis. Median patient age was 45 (interquartile range (IQR): 32–57) years. 42.1% (16/38) were female. 34.9% (15/43) presented in acute heart failure. 20.9% (9/43) presented in cardiogenic shock. Biventricular (BiVAD) MCS was required in 76.7% (33/43) of cases. Of the 62.8% (27/43) of patients who received immunotherapy, 81.5% (22/27) used steroids combined with at least one other immunosuppressant. Cyclosporine was the most common non-steroidal agent, used in 40.7% (11/27) of regimens. Immunosuppression was initiated before MCS in 59.3% (16/27) of cases, after MCS in 29.6% (8/27), and not specified in 11.1% (3/27). Immunosuppression started prior to MCS was associated with significantly better survival than MCS alone (p = 0.006); 60.5% (26/43) of patients received bridge-to-transplant MCS; 39.5% (17/43) received bridge-to-recovery MCS; 58.5% (24/41) underwent OHT a median of 104 (58–255) days from diagnosis. GCM recurrence after OHT was reported in 8.3% (2/24) of transplanted cases. BiVAD predominates in mechanically supported patients with GCM. Survival and bridge to recovery appear better in patients on immunosuppression, especially if initiated before MCS.
Background: The impact of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) complications on the individual patient, overall sentiment, and its effect on referral patterns, is not fully understood. We sought to better understand patient attitudes towards LVAD therapy using a computational sentiment analysis approach.Methods: Posts, comments, and titles were parsed from MyLVAD.com's HTML as a text file using custom Python scripts (version 3.6). Individual word frequency was computed with word classification as 'positive', 'negative', or 'neutral'. Data transformation and cleaning, sentiment determination, and analysis was performed with a binary dictionary package using R software (version 3.6).
Introduction: Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO 2 R) provides respiratory support to patients suffering from hypercapnic respiratory failure by utilizing an extracorporeal shunt and gas exchange membrane to remove CO 2 from either the venous (VV-ECCO 2 R) or arterial (AV-ECCO 2 R) system before return into the venous site. AV-ECCO 2 R relies on the patient's native cardiac function to generate pressures needed to deliver blood through the extracorporeal circuit.VV-ECCO 2 R utilizes a mechanical pump and can be used to treat patients with inadequate native cardiac function. We sought to evaluate the existing evidence comparing the subgroups of patients supported on VV and AV-ECCO 2 R devices. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify all relevant studies published between 2000 and 2019. Demographic information, medical indications, perioperative variables, and clinical outcomes were extracted for systematic review and meta-analysis. Results: Twenty-five studies including 826 patients were reviewed. 60% of patients (497/826) were supported on VV-ECCO 2 R. The most frequent indications were acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [69%, (95%CI: 53%-82%)] and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [49%, (95%CI: 37%-60%)]. ICU length of stay was significantly shorter in patients supported on VV-ECCO 2 R compared to AV-ECCO 2 R [15 (95%CI: 7-23) vs. 42 (95%CI: 17-67) days, p = 0.05].In-hospital mortality was not significantly different [27% (95%CI: 18%-38%) vs. 36% (95%CI: 24%-51%), p = 0.26]. Conclusion:Both VV and AV-ECCO 2 R provided clinically meaningful CO 2 removal with comparable mortality.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.