A systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular versus open surgical repair for the traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta.
Adult
Aorta, Thoracic
/ diagnostic imaging
Aortic Rupture
/ diagnostic imaging
Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation
/ adverse effects
Endovascular Procedures
/ adverse effects
Female
Hospital Mortality
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Postoperative Complications
/ mortality
Reoperation
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Vascular System Injuries
/ diagnostic imaging
Endovascular repair
Open repair
Ruptured aorta
Thoracic aorta
Journal
Journal of vascular surgery
ISSN: 1097-6809
Titre abrégé: J Vasc Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8407742
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2020
01 2020
Historique:
received:
15
12
2018
accepted:
08
05
2019
pubmed:
23
7
2019
medline:
17
6
2020
entrez:
23
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between open repair and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta. A comprehensive search was undertaken of the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all published data comparing open vs endovascular repair. Databases were evaluated to July 2018. Odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences, or standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were analyzed. The primary outcomes were stroke, paraplegia, and 30-day mortality rates; secondary outcomes were requirement for reintervention and 1-year and five-year mortality rates. A total of 1968 patients were analyzed in 21 articles. TEVAR was performed in 29% (n = 578) and open repair in 71% (n = 1390). TEVAR and open repair did not differ in the mean age of patients (42.1 ± 14 years vs 44.1 ± 14 years; P = .48). There was no difference in duration of intensive care and total hospital stay between TEVAR and open repair groups (12.7 ± 11.1 days vs 12.6 ± 8 days [P = .35] and 27.5 ± 14.6 days vs 25.9 ± 11 days [P = .80], respectively). Similarly, no statistically significant difference in postoperative paraplegia or stroke rate was noted between TEVAR and open repair (1.4% vs 2.3% [OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.59-2.70; P = .54] and 1% vs 0.5% [OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.18-2.18; P = .46]). Lower 30-day and 1-year mortality was noted in TEVAR (7.9% vs 20% [OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.92-4.49; P < .00001] and 8.7% vs 17% [OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.99-4.52; P = .05]). There was no difference in 5-year mortality (23% vs 17%; OR, 0.07; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.20; P = .33). However, there was a higher rate of reintervention at 1 year in the endovascular group (0% vs 6%; OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.96; P = .04). TEVAR carries lower in-hospital mortality and provides satisfactory perioperative outcomes compared with open repair in traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta. It also provides a favorable 1-year survival at the expense of higher reintervention rates.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31327611
pii: S0741-5214(19)31230-3
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.05.011
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
270-282Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.