Comparative Effectiveness of Treatment Modalities for Complex Aortic Aneurysms: A Network Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.
Humans
Blood Vessel Prosthesis
/ adverse effects
Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal
/ surgery
Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation
/ adverse effects
Risk Factors
Treatment Outcome
Network Meta-Analysis
Endovascular Procedures
/ adverse effects
Time Factors
Postoperative Complications
/ etiology
Prosthesis Design
Aortic Aneurysm
/ surgery
Retrospective Studies
Myocardial Infarction
Stroke
/ complications
Ischemia
/ surgery
Journal
Annals of vascular surgery
ISSN: 1615-5947
Titre abrégé: Ann Vasc Surg
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8703941
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2023
Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
09
08
2021
revised:
28
01
2023
accepted:
19
02
2023
medline:
19
6
2023
pubmed:
4
3
2023
entrez:
3
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To conduct a network meta-analysis comparing multiple treatments for complex aortic aneurysms (CAAs). Medical databases were searched on November 11, 2022. Twenty-five studies (5,149 patients) and four treatments (open surgery [OS], chimney/snorkel endovascular aneurysm repair [CEVAR], fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair [FEVAR], and branched endovascular aneurysm repair) were selected. Outcomes were branch vessel patency, mortality, and reintervention at short- and long-term followup, and perioperative complications. Regarding branch vessel patency, OS was the most effective treatment and had higher 24-month branch vessel patency rates than CEVAR (odds ratio [OR], 10.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.08-55.79). FEVAR (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-1.00) and OS (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.93) were better than CEVAR regarding 30-day mortality and 24-month mortality, respectively. Regarding 24-month reintervention, OS was better than CEVAR (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.15-8.18) and FEVAR (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.08-5.73). Regarding perioperative complications, FEVAR had lower acute renal failure rates than OS (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.66) and CEVAR (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25-0.92) and lower myocardial infarction rates than OS (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25-0.97) and was the most effective treatment in preventing acute renal failure, myocardial infarction, bowel ischemia, and stroke, while OS was the most effective treatment in preventing spinal cord ischemia. OS might have advantages regarding branch vessel patency, 24-month mortality, and reintervention and is similar to FEVAR regarding 30-day mortality. Regarding perioperative complications, FEVAR might confer advantages in preventing acute renal failure, myocardial infarction, bowel ischemia, and stroke, and OS in preventing spinal cord ischemia.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To conduct a network meta-analysis comparing multiple treatments for complex aortic aneurysms (CAAs).
METHODS
METHODS
Medical databases were searched on November 11, 2022. Twenty-five studies (5,149 patients) and four treatments (open surgery [OS], chimney/snorkel endovascular aneurysm repair [CEVAR], fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair [FEVAR], and branched endovascular aneurysm repair) were selected. Outcomes were branch vessel patency, mortality, and reintervention at short- and long-term followup, and perioperative complications.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Regarding branch vessel patency, OS was the most effective treatment and had higher 24-month branch vessel patency rates than CEVAR (odds ratio [OR], 10.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.08-55.79). FEVAR (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-1.00) and OS (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.93) were better than CEVAR regarding 30-day mortality and 24-month mortality, respectively. Regarding 24-month reintervention, OS was better than CEVAR (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.15-8.18) and FEVAR (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.08-5.73). Regarding perioperative complications, FEVAR had lower acute renal failure rates than OS (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.66) and CEVAR (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25-0.92) and lower myocardial infarction rates than OS (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25-0.97) and was the most effective treatment in preventing acute renal failure, myocardial infarction, bowel ischemia, and stroke, while OS was the most effective treatment in preventing spinal cord ischemia.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
OS might have advantages regarding branch vessel patency, 24-month mortality, and reintervention and is similar to FEVAR regarding 30-day mortality. Regarding perioperative complications, FEVAR might confer advantages in preventing acute renal failure, myocardial infarction, bowel ischemia, and stroke, and OS in preventing spinal cord ischemia.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36868464
pii: S0890-5096(23)00123-1
doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2023.02.023
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
369-386Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.