Clinical outcome of graft removal versus preservation in abdominal aortic graft infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose@#The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of abdominal aortic graft infection (AGI) treated with removal of the graft vs. graft preservation. @*Methods@#The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies that reported on AGI were searched. Observational studies and case series of at least 10 cases that reporting on the prevalence, microbiology, and outcomes of AGI were included. @*Results@#Our search identified 23 studies that met our inclusion criteria, reporting on a total of 873 patients who underwent open surgical repair (OSR) or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Of these patients, 833 received graft removal, and 40 received graft preservation. The prevalence of AGI was reported to be 1.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5%–1.8%) after OSR and 0.4% (95% CI, 0%–1.1%) after EVAR. The pooled estimates of 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year mortality were 28.7% (95% CI, 19.4%–38.8%), 36.6% (95% CI, 24.6%–49.5%), and 51.8% (95% CI, 38.4%–65.1%) in the graft removal group and 16.1% (95% CI, 4.1%–32.2%), 18.5% (95% CI, 5.7%–35.1%), and 50.0% (95% CI, 31.6%–68.4%) in the graft preservation group.The 30-day mortality rate’s risk ratio (RR) for graft removal vs. preservation was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.40–2.38), while the 1-year mortality rate’s RR was 3.44 (95% CI, 1.60–7.42). @*Conclusion@#The 30-day mortality rate of AGI treatment was found to be high, whether using graft removal or preservation.In selected patients, implementing antibiotics with graft preservation as an initial management may be helpful in reducing the mortality rate.

The Effect of Emergency Explanation System Modified from Medical Check-up Form

PURPOSE: This study was conducted in order to evaluate the effect of a newly developed explanation handout in the emergency department (ED) between patient and guardian. METHODS: From August 24, 2013 to September 24, 2013, interviews were conducted to patient accompanying guardian, discharged from Seoul Medical Center ED. Four groups were divided according to non-handout or handout in addition to patient or guardian. Each group consisted of 50 candidates and allocated according to a random table. The explanation handout could be easily applicable automatically through the Electronic Medical Record. It contains the results of laboratory tests along with cautions by diagnosis. After discharge explanation, a survey was conducted in each group using questionnaires for evaluation of the effect on medical service satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 97 candidates(49 patients, 48 guardians) in the non-handout group, and 99 candidates(50 patients, 49 guardians) in the handout group were enrolled. No statistical difference in epidemiology, except explanation time, was observed between the two groups. The handout group showed a higher score in all factors, however, explanation by physician (p<0.001), mean 3.61(+/-0.72) to 3.87(+/-0.73), understanding of medical status (p<0.001), mean 3.51(+/-0.75) to 4.11(+/-0.71), medical evaluation and treatment (p=0.001), mean 3.59(+/-0.72) to 3.92(+/-0.75), kindness of physician (p<0.001), mean 3.74(+/-0.81) to 4.09(+/-0.67), overall satisfaction (p<0.001), mean 3.60(+/-0.75) to 3.97(+/-0.75), willingness of revisit (p=0.023), mean 3.87(+/-0.73) to 4.09(+/-0.61), and willingness of recommendation (p<0.001), mean 3.66(+/-0.82) to 4.09(+/-0.66) showed statistically meaningful results. In a sub-analysis, statistically meaningful results were reanalyzed between patient and guardian. In the non-handout group, guardian showed higher scores in mean value in all factors, however, statistically meaningful results were observed for all factors, except understanding of medical status and medical evaluation and treatment. By application of the handout, 99 patients and 97 guardians showed higher scores in mean value in all factors. Patients showed statistically meaningful results in all factors but just in understanding of medical status in guardian. CONCLUSION: Results of this study showed that the explanation handout effectively increased medical service satisfaction. The effect of the explanation handout was more prominent in patients than guardians.

The Effect of Emergency Explanation System Modified from Medical Check-up Form

PURPOSE: This study was conducted in order to evaluate the effect of a newly developed explanation handout in the emergency department (ED) between patient and guardian. METHODS: From August 24, 2013 to September 24, 2013, interviews were conducted to patient accompanying guardian, discharged from Seoul Medical Center ED. Four groups were divided according to non-handout or handout in addition to patient or guardian. Each group consisted of 50 candidates and allocated according to a random table. The explanation handout could be easily applicable automatically through the Electronic Medical Record. It contains the results of laboratory tests along with cautions by diagnosis. After discharge explanation, a survey was conducted in each group using questionnaires for evaluation of the effect on medical service satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 97 candidates(49 patients, 48 guardians) in the non-handout group, and 99 candidates(50 patients, 49 guardians) in the handout group were enrolled. No statistical difference in epidemiology, except explanation time, was observed between the two groups. The handout group showed a higher score in all factors, however, explanation by physician (p<0.001), mean 3.61(+/-0.72) to 3.87(+/-0.73), understanding of medical status (p<0.001), mean 3.51(+/-0.75) to 4.11(+/-0.71), medical evaluation and treatment (p=0.001), mean 3.59(+/-0.72) to 3.92(+/-0.75), kindness of physician (p<0.001), mean 3.74(+/-0.81) to 4.09(+/-0.67), overall satisfaction (p<0.001), mean 3.60(+/-0.75) to 3.97(+/-0.75), willingness of revisit (p=0.023), mean 3.87(+/-0.73) to 4.09(+/-0.61), and willingness of recommendation (p<0.001), mean 3.66(+/-0.82) to 4.09(+/-0.66) showed statistically meaningful results. In a sub-analysis, statistically meaningful results were reanalyzed between patient and guardian. In the non-handout group, guardian showed higher scores in mean value in all factors, however, statistically meaningful results were observed for all factors, except understanding of medical status and medical evaluation and treatment. By application of the handout, 99 patients and 97 guardians showed higher scores in mean value in all factors. Patients showed statistically meaningful results in all factors but just in understanding of medical status in guardian. CONCLUSION: Results of this study showed that the explanation handout effectively increased medical service satisfaction. The effect of the explanation handout was more prominent in patients than guardians.