Endovascular Treatment for Cavernous Carotid Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 104808
Author(s):  
Yang Sun ◽  
Benlin Wan ◽  
Qi Li ◽  
Tang Li ◽  
Ge Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Carotid Aneurysms ◽  
Cavernous Carotid Aneurysms

A systematic review and meta-analysis on endovascular treatment as an attractive alternative for acute superior mesenteric venous thrombosis

Vascular ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 170853812199127
Author(s):  
Lixin Wang ◽  
Enci Wang ◽  
Fei Liu ◽  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Xiaolong Shu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Conservative Treatment ◽  
Venous Thrombosis ◽  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Mesenteric Venous Thrombosis ◽  
Surgery Group

Objective This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the published data on the efficacy and safety of therapies for superior mesenteric venous thrombosis (SMVT), aiming to provide a reference and set of recommendations for clinical treatment. Methods Relevant databases were searched for studies published from 2000 to June 2020 on SMVT treated with conservative treatment, surgical treatment, or endovascular approach. Different treatment types were grouped for analysis and comparison, and odds ratios with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The outcomes were pooled using meta-analytic methods and presented by forest plots. Results Eighteen articles, including eight on SMVT patients treated with endovascular therapies, were enrolled. The treatment effectiveness was compared between different groups according to the change of symptoms, the occurrence of complications, and mortality as well. The conservative treatment group had better efficacy compared to the surgery group (89.0% vs. 78.6%, P <0.05), and the one-year survival rate was also higher (94.4% vs. 80.0%, P >0.05), but without statistical significance. As for endovascular treatment, the effectiveness was significantly higher than the surgery group (94.8% vs. 75.2%, P <0.05), and the conservative treatment group as well (93.3% vs. 86.3%, P >0.05), which still requires further research for the lack of statistical significance. Conclusions Present findings indicate that anticoagulation, as conservative treatment should be the preferred clinical option in the clinic for SMVT, due to its better curative effect compared to other treatment options, including lower mortality, fewer complications, and better prognosis. Moreover, endovascular treatment is a feasible and promising approach that is worth in-depth research, for it is less invasive than surgery and has relatively better effectiveness, thus can provide an alternative option for SMVT treatment and may be considered as a reliable method in clinical.

Abstract TMP105: Endovascular Treatment of Severe and Refractory Cerebral Vasospasm Following Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Improves Outcome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Different Treatment Options Evaluated Since 2006 for Cerebral Vasospasm

Stroke ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregoire Boulouis ◽  
Marc-Antoine Labeyrie ◽  
Jean Raymond ◽  
Christine Rodriguez-Regent ◽  
Anne-Claire Lukaszewicz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Cerebral Vasospasm ◽  
Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Route Of Administration ◽  
Unfavorable Outcome ◽  
Q Value

Introduction: To report clinical outcome of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) patients exposed to cerebral vasospasm (CVS) targeted treatments in a systematic review and meta-analysis and compare the efficacy of endovascular and non-endovascular treatments in severe / refractory vasospasm patients. Methods: The literature was searched using PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library database. Eligibility criteria were (1) Rated clinical outcome; (2) at least 10 patients; (3) aSAH; (4) study published in English or French (January 2006 - October 2014); and (5) methodological quality score > 10, according to STROBE criteria. Endpoint included unfavorable outcome rate, defined as mRS 3-6, GOS 1-3 or GOSE 1-4 at latest follow-up. Analyses included stratification per route of administration (oral, i.v., intra-arterial or cisternoventricular) and per study inclusion criteria (severe, CVS, refractory CVS or high risk for CVS). Univariate and multivariate subgroup analyses were performed to identify interventions associated with a better outcome. Results: Sixty-two studies, including 26 randomized controlled trials, were included (8976 patients). Overall 2490 patients had unfavorable outcome including death (random-effect weighted average: 33.7%, 99%CI, 28.1-39.7%; Q-value: 806.0, I 2 =92.7%). Clinical outcome was significantly better in severe or refractory patients for whom, on top of best medical treatment, endovascular intervention was performed (RR=0.76, IC95% [0.66-0.89], p <0.00001) whereas other route of administration didn’t show significant differences. RR of unfavorable outcome was significantly lower, vs control groups, in patients treated with Cilostazol (RR=0.46 (IC99% [0.25-0.85], P = 0.001, Q value 1.5, I 2 = 0). Conclusion: In case of CVS following aSAH, endovascular treatment in severe / refractory vasospasm patients. including intra-arterial injection of pharmacological agents or balloon angioplasty, improves outcome as compared to other route of administration.

Endovascular treatment of cephalic arch stenosis in brachiocephalic arteriovenous fistulas: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 345-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reuban Toby D’cruz ◽  
Sze Wai Leong ◽  
Nicholas Syn ◽  
Alok Tiwari ◽  
Vikram Vijayan Sannasi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Arteriovenous Fistulas

scholarly journals Endovascular treatment for symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. e022359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao Wang ◽  
Xue Wang ◽  
Kun Yang ◽  
Jing Zhang ◽  
Jichang Luo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Intracranial Artery ◽  
Intracranial Artery Stenosis ◽  
Literature Database ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionAtherosclerotic intracranial artery stenosis (ICAS) is one of most common causes of stroke, which is the second-leading cause of death worldwide. Medical, surgical and endovascular therapy are three major treatments for ICAS. Currently, medical therapy is considered as the standard of care for most patients with ICAS, while extracranial to intracranial bypass is only used in rare situations. Balloon angioplasty alone, balloon-mounted stent and self-expanding stent, collectively called endovascular treatment, have shown promising potentials in treating specific subgroups of patients with symptomatic ICAS; however, their comparative safety and efficacy is still unclear. Therefore, a systematic review with network meta-analysis is needed to establish a hierarchy of these endovascular treatments.Methods and analysisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols was followed to establish this protocol. The search will be limited to studies published from 1 January 2000 to the formal search date. Major databases including Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, conference proceedings and grey literature database will be searched for clinical studies comparing at least two interventions for patients with symptomatic ICAS. Primary outcomes include short-term and long-term mortality or stroke rate. Random effects pairwise and network meta-analyses of included studies will be performed on STATA (V.14, StataCorp, 2015). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve and mean rank will be calculated in order to establish a hierarchy of the endovascular treatments. Evaluation of the risk of bias, heterogeneity, consistency, transitivity and quality of evidence will follow the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not needed as systematic review is based on published studies. Study findings will be presented at international conferences and published on a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018084055; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Cerebrovascular Complications After Upper Extremity Access for Complex Aortic Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Max M. Meertens ◽  
Charlotte C. Lemmens ◽  
Gustavo S. Oderich ◽  
Geert W. H. Schurink ◽  
Barend M. E. Mees
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cerebrovascular Event ◽  
Cerebrovascular Complications ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Aortic Interventions

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to review the risk of developing cerebrovascular complications from upper extremity access during endovascular treatment of complex aortic aneurysms. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the PRISMA guideline. An electronic search of the public domains Medline (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science and Cochrane Library was performed to identify studies related to the treatment of aortic aneurysms involving upper extremity access. Meta-analysis was used to compare the rate of cerebrovascular event after left, right and bilateral upper extremity access. Results are presented as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Thirteen studies including 1276 patients with complex endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms using upper extremity access were included in the systematic review. Left upper extremity access (UEA) was used in 1028 procedures, right access in 148 and bilateral access in 100 procedures. The rate of cerebrovascular complications for patients treated through left UEA was 1.7%, through right UEA 4% and through bilateral UEA 5%. In the meta-analysis, we included seven studies involving 645 patients treated with a left upper extremity access, 87 patients through a right and 100 patients through a bilateral upper extremity access. Patients, who underwent right-sided (RR 5.01, 95% CI 1.51–16.58, P = 0.008) or bilateral UEA (RR 4.57, 95% CI 1.23–17.04, P = 0.02), had a significantly increased risk of cerebrovascular events compared to those who had a left-sided approach. Conclusion Left upper extremity access is associated with a significantly lower rate of cerebrovascular complications as compared to right or bilateral upper extremity access.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document