ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Telephone and video-based triage of dyspnoea has become commonplace and clinicians are faced with a new challenge in risk stratification of patients with dyspnoea due to suspected COVID-19. This review aimed to identify existing remote assessment modalities for acute dyspnoea which can be applied during pandemics. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and medRxiv for studies of remote assessment of dyspnoea [PROSPERO ID: CRD42020202292]. A total of 3014 abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers and 32 studies were progressed to full text screening. RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Commonly assessed clinical features included respiratory rate, work of breathing, counting time and mental status. All studies found remote triage modalities to be appropriate for detecting severe respiratory distress or the need for emergency level care. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based tools to remotely assess dyspnoea will reduce resource strain during current and future pandemics.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Dyspnea/diagnosis , Dyspnea/etiology , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , TriageABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Type B aortic dissection (TBAD), is defined as a dissection involving the aorta distal to left subclavian artery with the ascending aorta and the aortic arch not affected. TBAD is classified due to the time frame and presence of complications. Complicated TBAD (co-TBAD) patients have a greater mortality rate than uncomplicated TBAD (un-TBAD) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is considered the gold-standard intervention for these clinical challenges. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of the literature regarding TEVAR intervention in co-TBAD and un-TBAD. A comprehensive search was undertaken across four major databases and was evaluated and assessed until June 2020. RESULTS: A total of 16,104 patients were included in the study (7772 patients co-TBAD and 8352 un-TBAD). A significantly higher proportion of comorbidities were seen in co-TBAD patients compared with un-TBAD. Acute dissection was more frequent in the co-TBAD group (73.55% vs. 66.91%), while chronic dissection was more common in un-TBAD patients (33.8% vs. 70.73%). Postprocedure stroke was higher in co-TBAD (5.85% vs. 3.92%; p < .01), while postprocedural renal failure was higher in un-TBAD patients (7.23 vs. 11.38%; p < .01). No difference was observed in in-hospital mortality however the 30 days mortality was higher in the co-TBAD group. One-year survival was higher in the uncomplicated group but this difference was not observed in the 5-year survival. CONCLUSION: In our analysis we can appreciate that despite significantly higher comorbidities in the co-TBAD cohort, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality between the two groups and the 5-year survival did not have any difference.
Subject(s)
Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic , Aortic Dissection , Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation , Endovascular Procedures , Aortic Dissection/surgery , Aorta, Thoracic/diagnostic imaging , Aorta, Thoracic/surgery , Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic/surgery , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Non-A non-B aortic dissections are an infrequent occurrence and represent a small proportion of aortic dissections. Treating this life-threatening medical emergency often requires surgeons to undertake some one of the most challenging surgical or endovascular cases in medicine. This literature review aims to define and classify non-A non-B dissections, describe their epidemiology as well as their pathology. This review also aims to discuss the range of surgical techniques employed in their treatment and management and to investigate the patient outcomes associated with each technique.
