Hybrid type II and frozen elephant trunk in acute Stanford type A aortic dissections.

Objectives. Composite frozen elephant trunk is an increasingly popular solution for complex aortic pathologies. This review aims to compare outcomes of zone 0 type II hybrid (hybrid II) with the composite frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique in managing acute Stanford type A aortic dissections. Methods. PubMed and Embase were systematically searched using PRISMA protocol. 11 relevant studies describing the outcomes of hybrid II arch repair and FET techniques in patients with type A aortic dissection were included in the meta-analysis. The study focused on early post-operative 30-day outcomes analysing mortality, stroke, spinal cord injury, renal impairment requiring dialysis, bleeding and lung infection. Results. 1305 patients were included in the analysis - 343 receiving hybrid II repair and 962 treated with the FET. Meta-analysis of proportions showed Hybrid II was associated with less early mortality [5.0 (CI 3.1-7.8) vs 8.1 (CI 6.5-10.0) %], stroke [2.3 (CI 1.1-4.6) vs 7.0 (CI 5.5-8.8) %], spinal cord injury [2.0 (CI 0.9-4.3) vs 3.8 (CI 2.8-5.3) %], renal impairment requiring dialysis [7.9 (CI 5.5-11.2) vs 11.8 (CI 9.8-14.0) %], reoperation for bleeding [3.9 (CI 1.8-8.4) vs 10.6 (CI 8.1-13.8) %] and lung infection [14.8 (CI 10.8-20.0) vs 20.7 (CI 16.9-25.1) %]. Conclusion. Hybrid II should be considered in favour of FET technique in acute Stanford type A dissection patients who are at higher risk due to age and comorbidities.

A Systematic Review of the Impact of Viral Respiratory Epidemics on Mental Health: An Implication on the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

Background: The twenty-first century viral respiratory epidemics have taught us valuable lessons. Our systematic review examined the impact of these epidemics, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on mental health among different population groups, drawing on their insights for recommendations for the current COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Searches were performed on PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane on April 4, 2020. Studies that had undefined mental health outcomes or did not use a validated scale for measure were excluded. Quality assessment was carried out via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: We included 95 studies, most of which were conducted in Hong Kong (31.6%) and China (21.4%). A total of 30 (30.9%) studies are on the general public, 41 (42.2%) on healthcare workers, and 26 (26.6%) on patients and quarantined individuals. Furthermore, 36 (37.1%) of the studies are of high quality, 48 (49.5%) are of moderate quality, and 13 (13.4%) are of low quality. The most significant mental health outcomes reported include anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. The subgroups identified to have a higher risk of psychiatric symptoms among the general public include females, the elderly, individuals with chronic illness, migrant workers, and students. Long-term mental health impact was reported in some healthcare workers and epidemic patients, even up to 3 years in the former. Interestingly, when compared to non-quarantined groups, quarantine was not significantly associated with worse mental health outcomes. Conclusion: Important implications for the COVID-19 pandemic were highlighted. Respiratory epidemics pose a significant psychological morbidity onto many population groups. Psychological support for vulnerable groups, including healthcare workers and patients, should be implemented to prevent them from spiraling into clinical psychiatric conditions.