The purpose of the study was to provide a systematic review of the literature reporting the contemporary early outcomes after endovascular and open repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms ...(TAAAs).
MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies from January 2006 to March 2018 that reported either endovascular (using branched or fenestrated endografts) or open repair of TAAA in at least 10 patients. Outcomes of interest included perioperative mortality, spinal cord injury (SCI), renal failure requiring dialysis, and stroke. Pooled proportions were determined using a random-effects model.
The analysis included 71 studies, of which 24 and 47 reported outcomes after endovascular and open TAAA repair, respectively. Endovascular cohort patients were older and had higher rates of coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes. Endovascular repair was associated with higher rates of SCI (13.5%; 95% confidence interval CI, 10.5%-16.7%) compared with open repair (7.4%; 95% CI, 6.2%-8.7%; P < .01) but similar rates of permanent paralysis (5.2% 95% CI, 3.8%-6.7% vs 4.4% 95% CI, 3.3%-5.6%; P = .39), lower rates of postoperative dialysis (6.4% 95% CI, 3.2%-9.5% vs 12.0% 95% CI, 8.2%-16.3%; P = .03) but similar rates of being discharged on permanent dialysis (3.7% 95% CI, 2.0%-5.9% vs 3.8% 95% CI, 2.9%-5.3%; P = .93), a trend to lower stroke (2.7% 95% CI, 1.9%-3.6% vs 3.9% 95% CI, 3.0%-4.9%; P = .06), and similar perioperative mortality (7.4% 95% CI, 5.9%-9.1% vs 8.9% 95% CI, 7.2%-10.9%; P = .21).
This systematic review summarizes the contemporary literature results of endovascular and open TAAA repair. Endovascular repair studies included patients with more comorbidities and were associated with higher rates of SCI but similar rates of permanent paraplegia, whereas open repair studies had higher rates of postoperative dialysis but similar rates of being discharged on permanent dialysis. Perioperative mortality rates were similar. Universally adopted reporting standards for patient characteristics, outcomes, and the conduct of contemporary comparative studies will allow better assessment and comparisons of the risks associated with the two surgical treatment options for TAAA.
The Thoracic Surgery Social Media Network (TSSMN) is a collaborative effort of leading journals in cardiothoracic surgery to highlight publications via social media. This study aims to evaluate the ...1-year results of a prospective randomized social media trial to determine the effect of tweeting on subsequent citations and nontraditional bibliometrics.
A total of 112 representative original articles were randomized 1:1 to be tweeted via TSSMN or a control (non-tweeted) group. Measured endpoints included citations at 1 year compared with baseline, as well as article-level metrics (Altmetric score) and Twitter analytics. Independent predictors of citations were identified through univariable and multivariable regression analyses.
When compared with control articles, tweeted articles achieved significantly greater increase in Altmetric scores (Tweeted 9.4 ± 5.8 vs Non-tweeted 1.0 ± 1.8, P < .001), Altmetric score percentiles relative to articles of similar age from each respective journal (Tweeted 76.0 ± 9.1 percentile vs Non-tweeted 13.8 ± 22.7 percentile, P < .001), with greater change in citations at 1 year (Tweeted +3.1 ± 2.4 vs Non-Tweeted +0.7 ± 1.3, P < .001). Multivariable analysis showed that independent predictors of citations were randomization to tweeting (odds ratio OR 9.50; 95% confidence interval CI 3.30-27.35, P < .001), Altmetric score (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.15-1.50, P < .001), open-access status (OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.21-1.78, P < .001), and exposure to a larger number of Twitter followers as quantified by impressions (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10-1.49, P < .001).
One-year follow-up of this TSSMN prospective randomized trial importantly demonstrates that tweeting results in significantly more article citations over time, highlighting the durable scholarly impact of social media activity.
Display omitted
Abstract Background Although aortic valve-sparing (AVS) operations are established alternatives to composite valve graft (CVG) procedures for patients with aortic root aneurysms, comparative ...long-term outcomes are lacking. Objectives This study sought to compare the results of patients undergoing AVS procedures with those undergoing CVG operations. Methods From 1990 to 2010, a total of 616 patients age <70 years and without aortic stenosis underwent elective aortic root surgery (AVS, n = 253; CVG with a bioprosthesis bio-CVG, n = 180; CVG with a mechanical prosthesis m-CVG, n = 183). A propensity score was used as a covariate to adjust for unbalanced variables in group comparisons. Mean age was 46 ± 14 years, 83.3% were male, and mean follow-up was 9.8 ± 5.3 years. Results Patients undergoing AVS had higher rates of Marfan syndrome and lower rates of bicuspid aortic valve than those undergoing bio-CVG or m-CVG procedures. In-hospital mortality (0.3%) and stroke rate (1.3%) were similar among groups. After adjusting for clinical covariates, both bio-CVG and m-CVG procedures were associated with increased long-term major adverse valve-related events compared with patients undergoing AVS (hazard ratio HR: 3.4, p = 0.005; and HR: 5.2, p < 0.001, respectively). They were also associated with increased cardiac mortality (HR: 7.0, p = 0.001; and HR: 6.4, p = 0.003). Furthermore, bio-CVG procedures were associated with increased risk of reoperations (HR: 6.9; p = 0.003), and m-CVG procedures were associated with increased risk of anticoagulant-related hemorrhage (HR: 5.6; p = 0.008) compared with AVS procedures. Conclusions This comparative study showed that AVS procedures were associated with reduced cardiac mortality and valve-related complications when compared with bio-CVG and m-CVG. AVS is the treatment of choice for young patients with aortic root aneurysm and normal or near-normal aortic cusps.
The objective of this study was to compare the early results of endovascular vs open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair.
MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies from January 2006 to ...March 2018 that compared endovascular vs open repair of TAAA using branched or fenestrated endografts. Data were subjected to a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The outcomes of interest included early mortality, spinal cord injury, renal failure requiring dialysis, stroke, and hospital length of stay.
Eight comparative studies met inclusion criteria. There were two retrospective propensity-matched studies, two unadjusted single-center retrospective studies, and four unadjusted national population-based studies. Mortality in the matched studies was equivalent in both groups. Pooled analysis of all unmatched observational studies revealed a survival benefit for endovascular over open repair (relative risk RR, 0.63; 95% confidence interval CI,0.45-0.87); P < .01, I2 = 47%). Endovascular repair was also associated with lower incidence of spinal cord injury (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.01; P = .05; I2 = 28%). For unmatched studies, pooled RR of renal failure requiring dialysis significantly favored endovascular repair (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85; P = .01; I2 = 0%), although in the adjusted cohort, risk of dialysis was not different (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.06-15.65; P = 1.00). Postoperative stroke rate was reported in three unadjusted studies and was not different between groups (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.28-2.40; P = .71; I2 = 77%). Hospital length of stay was reported in four studies and was shorter in the endovascular group (mean difference, −4.4 days; 95% CI, −6.6 to −1.7; P < .01; I2 = 73%).
There are few reports comparing endovascular vs open repair of TAAAs. Short-term outcomes may be improved in patients undergoing endovascular treatment of TAAA on the basis of a limited number of studies with high risk of bias. These findings highlight the need for larger comparative studies with standardization of reporting.
The Thoracic Surgery Social Media Network (TSSMN) represents a collaborative effort of leading journals in cardiothoracic surgery to highlight publications via social media, specifically Twitter. We ...conducted a prospective randomized trial to determine the effect of scheduled tweeting on nontraditional bibliometrics of dissemination.
A total of 112 representative original articles (2017-2018) were selected and randomized 1:1 to an intervention group to be tweeted via TSSMN or a control (non-tweeted) group. Four articles per day were tweeted by TSSMN delegates for 14 days. Primary endpoints included change in article-level metrics (Altmetric) score pre-tweet and post-tweet compared with the control group. Secondary endpoints included change in Twitter analytics day 1 post-tweet and day 7 post-tweet for each article compared with baseline.
Tweeting via TSSMN significantly improved article Altmetric scores (pre-tweet 1 vs post-tweet 8; P < .001), Mendeley reads (pre-tweet 1 vs post-tweet 3; P < .001), and Twitter impressions (day 1 post-tweet 1599 vs day 7 post-tweet 2296; P < .001). Subgroup analysis demonstrates that incorporating photos into the tweets trended toward increased link clicks to the full-text article (P = .08) whereas tweeting at 1 pm Eastern Standard Time and 9 pm Eastern Standard Time generated the highest and lowest audience reach (P = .022), respectively. Articles published in adult cardiac surgery achieved the highest change in Altmetric score (P = .028) and Mendeley reads (P = .028), and were more likely to be retweeted (P = .042) than were those published on education, general thoracic surgery, and congenital surgery.
Social media highlights of scholarly literature via TSSMN Twitter activity improves article Altmetric scores, Mendeley reads, and Twitter analytics, with dissemination to a greater audience.
Display omitted
PDF
