Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022
Effectiveness of endovascular repair versus open surgery for the treatment of thoracoabdominal aneurysm: A systematic review and meta analysis.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Ellahi Aayat, Shaikh Fahd Niaz, Kashif Haider, Khan Hamna, Ali Eman, Nasim Bushra, Adil Mariam, Huda Zunera, Liaquat Ayesha, Arshad Muhammad Sameer
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) are associated with significant comorbidities. The aim of our study is to compare the outcomes of open repair versus endovascular repair of TAAAs.
METHODS: A thorough literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases. The analysis included observational studies comparing the outcomes of surgical vs endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of TAAA. Mortality, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), renal failure, stroke, paraplegia, and respiratory and cardiac problems were all included in the studies. The results were provided as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). These were then aggregated using an inverse variance weighted random-effects model, and the pooled analysis was displayed using forest plots.
RESULTS: This meta-analysis compromising of twelve studies revealed significant results, favoring endovascular repair versus open surgery for all-cause mortality (HR = 1.91; 95% CI: 1.68-2.18; P < 0.00001), SCI (HR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.18-2.21; P = 0.003), respiratory complications (HR = 2.22; 95% CI: 1.78-2.77; P < 0.00001), and cardiac complications (HR = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.38-2.00; P < 0.00001). Upon subgroup analysis based on propensity matched, results were consistent and significant for the outcomes of all-cause mortality, cardiac complications, and respiratory complications. For the propensity unmatched subgroup, the incidence of all-cause mortality, SCI, respiratory complications, and cardiac complications were lower among endovascular repair cohort.
CONCLUSION: Current evidence supports the use of endovascular repair over open surgery. However, there is a need to conduct dedicated randomized controlled trials to effectively compare and determine the benefits and risk of both strategies.
METHODS: A thorough literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases. The analysis included observational studies comparing the outcomes of surgical vs endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of TAAA. Mortality, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), renal failure, stroke, paraplegia, and respiratory and cardiac problems were all included in the studies. The results were provided as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). These were then aggregated using an inverse variance weighted random-effects model, and the pooled analysis was displayed using forest plots.
RESULTS: This meta-analysis compromising of twelve studies revealed significant results, favoring endovascular repair versus open surgery for all-cause mortality (HR = 1.91; 95% CI: 1.68-2.18; P < 0.00001), SCI (HR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.18-2.21; P = 0.003), respiratory complications (HR = 2.22; 95% CI: 1.78-2.77; P < 0.00001), and cardiac complications (HR = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.38-2.00; P < 0.00001). Upon subgroup analysis based on propensity matched, results were consistent and significant for the outcomes of all-cause mortality, cardiac complications, and respiratory complications. For the propensity unmatched subgroup, the incidence of all-cause mortality, SCI, respiratory complications, and cardiac complications were lower among endovascular repair cohort.
CONCLUSION: Current evidence supports the use of endovascular repair over open surgery. However, there is a need to conduct dedicated randomized controlled trials to effectively compare and determine the benefits and risk of both strategies.