Review: Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Studies Comparing Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) Versus Without ADM.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the world's most prevalent cancer, and many breast cancer patients undergo mastectomy as the choice of treatment, often with post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) use has become a method to improve outcomes of reconstruction for these patients. We aimed to compare postoperative complications and patient-reported outcomes, which are still poorly characterized, between groups utilizing acellular dermal matrix during reconstruction and those without. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched electronic databases from inception to 16 June 2022 for randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies comparing the outcomes of patients who have and have not received acellular dermal matrix in implant-based breast reconstruction. The results were quantitatively combined and analyzed using random-effects models. RESULTS: A total of nine studies were included, representing 3161 breasts. There was no significant difference in postoperative outcomes, such as seroma formation (p = 0.51), hematomas (p = 0.20), infections (p = 0.21), wound dehiscence (p = 0.09), reoperations (p = 0.70), implant loss (p = 0.27), or skin necrosis (p = 0.21). Only two of the studies included evaluated patient-reported outcomes between the use and non-use of ADM in implant-based breast reconstruction using BREAST-Q questionnaire, as well as self-reported pain. There was no reported significant difference in BREAST-Q or pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows comparable short- and long-term outcomes between ADM and non-ADM breast reconstruction, suggesting that the use of ADM may not be necessary in all cases given their additional cost. However, there is a paucity of data for patient-reported outcomes, and further research is required to determine whether ADM use affects patient-reported outcomes.

Global prevalence of basic life support training: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest exerts a large disease burden, which may be mitigated by bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillation. We aimed to estimate the global prevalence and distribution of bystander training among laypersons, which are poorly understood, and to identify their determinants. METHODS: We searched electronic databases for cross-sectional studies reporting the prevalence of bystander training from representative population samples. Pooled prevalence was calculated using random-effects models. Key outcome was cardiopulmonary resuscitation training (training within two-years and those who were ever trained). We explored determinants of interest using subgroup analysis and meta-regression. RESULTS: 29 studies were included, representing 53,397 laypersons. Among national studies, the prevalence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation training within two-years and among those who were ever trained, and automated external defibrillator training was 10.02% (95% CI 6.60 -14.05), 42.04% (95% CI 30.98-53.28) and 21.08% (95% CI 10.16-34.66) respectively. Subgroup analyses by continent revealed pooled prevalence estimates of 31.58% (95%CI 18.70-46.09), 58.78% (95%CI 42.41-74.21), 18.93 (95%CI 0.00-62.94), 64.97% (95%CI 64.00-65.93), and 50.56% (95%CI 47.57-53.54) in Asia, Europe, Middle East, North America, and Oceania respectively, with significant subgroup differences (p < 0.01). A country's income and cardiopulmonary resuscitation training (ever trained) (p = 0.033) were positively correlated. Similarly, this prevalence was higher among the highly educated (p<0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Large regional variation exists in data availability and bystander training prevalence. Socioeconomic status correlated with prevalence of bystander training, and regional disparities were apparent between continents. Bystander training should be promoted, particularly in Asia, Middle East, and low-income regions. Data availability should be encouraged from under-represented regions.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants vs vitamin K antagonists after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with atrial fibrillation.

PURPOSE: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly carried out in patients with aortic valvular conditions. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common comorbidity among patients undergoing TAVR. Despite this, there remains a paucity of data and established guidelines regarding anticoagulation use post-TAVR in patients with AF. METHODS: Four databases were searched from inception until 12 October 2021. A title and abstract sieve, full-text review and data extraction were conducted by independent authors, and articles including patients without AF were excluded. The Review Manager (Version 5.4) was utilised in data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 25,199 post-TAVR patients with AF were included from seven articles, with 9764 patients on non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) and 15,435 patients on vitamin K antagonists (VKA). In this analysis, there was a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality at 1 year (RR: 0.75, CI: 0.58-0.97, p = 0.04, I2 = 56%), and bleeding at 1 year (RR: 0.73, CI: 0.68-0.79, p = < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), between patients on NOAC and VKA. There were no detectable differences between patients on NOAC and VKA for all-cause mortality at 2 years, stroke within 30 days, stroke within 1 year, ischaemic stroke at 1 year and life-threatening bleeding at 30 days. CONCLUSION: While the results of this analysis reveal NOAC as a potential alternate treatment modality to VKA in post-TAVR patients with AF, further research is needed to determine the full safety and efficacy profile of NOAC (PROSPERO: CRD42021283548).