Journal of vascular surgery · 2026
To regress or not to regress? Outcomes of aneurysm sac behavior after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Çetinel Eren, Khattak Asad Iqbal, Labib Mostafa, Dagostin Andressa Frankowski, Bezborodova Alexandra, Rego Rafael Andrade, Habiyambere Ghislain Irakoze, Madera Dario
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of aneurysmal sac regression vs failure to regress on perioperative and long-term outcomes after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).
METHODS: Article screening was conducted using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane databases. The primary outcome was overall survival; secondary outcomes included reintervention-free survival, endoleak during follow-up, aneurysmal rupture, and reintervention during follow-up. End points were compared using risk ratios (RRs) for binary outcomes and hazard ratios (HRs) for long-term outcomes. For all outcomes, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Subgroup analysis was done for studies including fenestrated/branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) patients and for studies comparing sac regression to sac stability. A trial sequential analysis was done for the short-term outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed through the I2 statistic. GRADE assessment of the findings was performed.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies comprising 36,822 patients were included. Sac regression was associated with improved overall survival in the overall analysis (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.80; P < .00001). In the F/BEVAR subgroup, sac regression was associated with a numerically lower hazard of death; however, this association did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.49-1.53; P = .62). This association persisted for endoleak during follow-up, with lower risk observed in the overall analysis (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.41-0.72; P < .0001) and in the F/BEVAR subgroup (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.41-0.75; P = .0001). Patients with sac regression also demonstrated better reintervention-free survival (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.27-0.53; P < .00,001) and a lower incidence of reintervention during follow-up and aneurysm rupture; however, these latter outcomes were not statistically significant within the F/BEVAR subgroup. Statistical significance persisted across all outcomes in the subgroup analysis comparing sac regression with stable sac.
CONCLUSIONS: Sac regression after EVAR confers superior outcomes compared with failure to regress. Our findings underscore the importance of sac behavior as a key indicator in post-EVAR surveillance and long-term risk stratification.
METHODS: Article screening was conducted using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane databases. The primary outcome was overall survival; secondary outcomes included reintervention-free survival, endoleak during follow-up, aneurysmal rupture, and reintervention during follow-up. End points were compared using risk ratios (RRs) for binary outcomes and hazard ratios (HRs) for long-term outcomes. For all outcomes, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Subgroup analysis was done for studies including fenestrated/branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) patients and for studies comparing sac regression to sac stability. A trial sequential analysis was done for the short-term outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed through the I2 statistic. GRADE assessment of the findings was performed.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies comprising 36,822 patients were included. Sac regression was associated with improved overall survival in the overall analysis (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.80; P < .00001). In the F/BEVAR subgroup, sac regression was associated with a numerically lower hazard of death; however, this association did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.49-1.53; P = .62). This association persisted for endoleak during follow-up, with lower risk observed in the overall analysis (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.41-0.72; P < .0001) and in the F/BEVAR subgroup (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.41-0.75; P = .0001). Patients with sac regression also demonstrated better reintervention-free survival (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.27-0.53; P < .00,001) and a lower incidence of reintervention during follow-up and aneurysm rupture; however, these latter outcomes were not statistically significant within the F/BEVAR subgroup. Statistical significance persisted across all outcomes in the subgroup analysis comparing sac regression with stable sac.
CONCLUSIONS: Sac regression after EVAR confers superior outcomes compared with failure to regress. Our findings underscore the importance of sac behavior as a key indicator in post-EVAR surveillance and long-term risk stratification.