Annals of vascular surgery · 2025
Endovascular-Based Treatment Compared to Frozen Elephant Trunk for Patients With Non-A Non-B Aortic Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание 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.
De Melo Neto Carlos B M, Obara Mariana K, Godeiro Fernandez Miguel, Pimentel Junior Dilson S, Monteiro Mastra Milena, Bertolino Enrico P, Filippini Denise, Mulatti Grace Carvajal
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare endovascular-based treatments (EBTs) to surgical repair with Frozen Elephant Trunk (FET) in patients with non-A non-B aortic dissection and evaluate which of these approaches yields better outcomes.
METHODS: The systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases up to January 2025. Articles were analyzed following the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The outcomes evaluated were all-cause mortality, 30-day mortality, aortic-related reintervention, length of hospital stay, and adverse aortic-related events. In addition, we performed a meta-regression analysis for all the outcomes to assess for any interaction with the following characteristics: prevalence of hypertension, prevalence of diabetes mellitus, aortic arch diameter, median follow-up period, and proportion of repairs in the acute phase of dissection.
RESULTS: The search yielded 942 results, of which 3 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 309 patients were included. No statistical difference was observed regarding all-cause mortality, 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and adverse aortic-related events. However, EBT revealed a significant increase in aortic-related reintervention compared to FET (risk ratio 1.93; 95% confidence interval 1.67-2.22; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%). Prespecified meta-regressions showed no significant interactions.
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis reveals that FET has an improved outcome compared to EBTs for patients with non-A non-B aortic dissection. Furthermore, a definitive recommendation for either surgery or endovascular therapy cannot be made because of the limitations inherent to an analysis of a small population with heterogeneous anatomical presentation.
METHODS: The systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases up to January 2025. Articles were analyzed following the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The outcomes evaluated were all-cause mortality, 30-day mortality, aortic-related reintervention, length of hospital stay, and adverse aortic-related events. In addition, we performed a meta-regression analysis for all the outcomes to assess for any interaction with the following characteristics: prevalence of hypertension, prevalence of diabetes mellitus, aortic arch diameter, median follow-up period, and proportion of repairs in the acute phase of dissection.
RESULTS: The search yielded 942 results, of which 3 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 309 patients were included. No statistical difference was observed regarding all-cause mortality, 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and adverse aortic-related events. However, EBT revealed a significant increase in aortic-related reintervention compared to FET (risk ratio 1.93; 95% confidence interval 1.67-2.22; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%). Prespecified meta-regressions showed no significant interactions.
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis reveals that FET has an improved outcome compared to EBTs for patients with non-A non-B aortic dissection. Furthermore, a definitive recommendation for either surgery or endovascular therapy cannot be made because of the limitations inherent to an analysis of a small population with heterogeneous anatomical presentation.