Efficacy and Safety of Endovascular Fenestrated and Branched Grafts Versus Open Surgery in Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: An Updated Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression of efficacy and safety of fenestrated/branched endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) compared with open repair. BACKGROUND: Endovascular repair of TAAAs may be a promising alternative to open surgery by reducing invasiveness and expanding the eligible population, but evidence remains limited. METHODS: We applied "Prepared Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis" guidelines to retrieve, quantitatively pool, and critically evaluate the efficacy and safety (including 30-day mortality, reintervention, spinal cord injury [SCI], and renal injury) of both approaches. Original studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library until April 20, 2022, excluding papers reporting <10 patients. Pooled proportions and means were determined using a random-effect model. Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated with I2 statistics. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies met the predefined inclusion criteria. Endovascular cohort patients were older and had higher rates of comorbidities. Endovascular repair was associated with similar proportions of mortality (0.07, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.06-0.08) compared with open repair (0.09, 95% CI: 0.08-0.12; P = 0.22), higher proportions of reintervention (0.19, 95% CI: 0.13-0.26 vs 0.06, 95% CI: 0.04-0.10; P < 0.01), similar proportions of transient SCI (0.07, 95% CI: 0.05-0.09 vs 0.06, 95% CI: 0.05-0.08; P = 0.28), lower proportions of permanent SCI (0.04, 95% CI: 0.03-0.05 vs 0.06, 95% CI: 0.05-0.07; P < 0.01), and renal injury (0.08, 95% CI: 0.06-0.10 vs 0.13, 95% CI: 0.09-0.17; P = 0.02). Results were affected by high heterogeneity and potential publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Despite these limitations and the lack of randomized trials, this meta-analysis suggests that endovascular TAAA repair could be a safer alternative to the open approach.

A Multicenter International Randomized Controlled Manikin Study on Different Protocols of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Laypeople: The MANI-CPR Trial.

BACKGROUND: Compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a suggested technique for laypeople facing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, it is difficult performing high-quality CPR until emergency medical services arrival with this technique. We aimed to verify whether incorporating intentional interruptions of different frequency and duration increases laypeople's CPR quality during an 8-minute scenario compared with compression-only CPR. METHODS: We performed a multicenter randomized manikin study selecting participants from 2154 consecutive laypeople who followed a basic life support/automatic external defibrillation course. People who achieved high-quality CPR in 1-minute test on a computerized manikin were asked to participate. Five hundred seventy-six were enrolled, and 59 were later excluded for technical reasons or incorrect test recording. Participants were randomized in an 8-minute OHCA scenario using 3 CPR protocols (30 compressions and 2-second pause, 30c2s; 50 compressions and 5-second pause, 50c5s; 100 compressions and 10-second pause, 100c10s) or compression-only technique. The main outcome was the percentage of chest compressions with adequate depth. RESULTS: Five hundred seventeen participants were evaluated. There was a statistically significant difference regarding the percentage of compressions with correct depth among the groups (30c2s, 96%; 50c5s, 96%; 100c10s, 92%; compression only, 79%; P = 0.006). Post hoc comparison showed a significant difference for 30c2s (P = 0.023) and for 50c5s (P = 0.003) versus compression only. Regarding secondary outcome, there were a higher chest compression fraction in the compression-only group and a higher rate of pauses longer than 10 seconds in the 100c10s. CONCLUSIONS: In a simulated OHCA, 30c2s and 50c5s protocols were characterized by a higher rate of chest compressions with correct depth than compression only. This could have practical consequences in laypeople CPR training and recommendations.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02632500.