Annals of surgery · 2024
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.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Vigezzi Giacomo Pietro, Barbati Chiara, Blandi Lorenzo, Guddemi Annalisa, Melloni Andrea, Salvati Simone, Bertoglio Luca, Odone Anna, HTA PRO-ENDO commission investigators
Аннотация
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.
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.