Efficacy and Safety of Endovascular Fenestrated and Branched Grafts vs open Surgery in Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: An Updated Systematic Review, Meta-analysis and Meta-regression.


Journal

Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 Jan 2024
Historique:
medline: 12 1 2024
pubmed: 12 1 2024
entrez: 12 1 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

To provide an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression of safety and efficacy of fenestrated/branched endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) compared with open repair. Endovascular repair of TAAAs may be a promising alternative to open surgery by reducing invasiveness and expanding the eligible population, but evidence remains limited. We applied PRISMA 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 20 April 2022, excluding papers reporting less than 10 patients. Pooled proportions and means were determined using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated with I2 statistics. Sixty-four studies met the pre-defined 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 interval, CI, 0.06-0.08) compared with open repair (0.09, 95%CI 0.08-0.12; P-value=0.22), higher proportions of reintervention (0.19, 95%CI 0.13-0.26, vs. 0.06, 95%CI 0.04-0.10; P-value<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-value=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-value<0.01) and renal injury (0.08, 95%CI 0.06-0.10, vs. 0.13, 95%CI 0.09-0.17; P-value=0.02). Results were affected by high heterogeneity and potential publication bias. Despite these limitations and the lack of randomised trials, this meta-analysis suggests that endovascular TAAA repair could be a safer alternative to the open approach.

Sections du résumé

OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To provide an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression of safety and efficacy of fenestrated/branched endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) compared with open repair.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA 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 METHODS
We applied PRISMA 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 20 April 2022, excluding papers reporting less than 10 patients. Pooled proportions and means were determined using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated with I2 statistics.
RESULTS RESULTS
Sixty-four studies met the pre-defined 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 interval, CI, 0.06-0.08) compared with open repair (0.09, 95%CI 0.08-0.12; P-value=0.22), higher proportions of reintervention (0.19, 95%CI 0.13-0.26, vs. 0.06, 95%CI 0.04-0.10; P-value<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-value=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-value<0.01) and renal injury (0.08, 95%CI 0.06-0.10, vs. 0.13, 95%CI 0.09-0.17; P-value=0.02). Results were affected by high heterogeneity and potential publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Despite these limitations and the lack of randomised trials, this meta-analysis suggests that endovascular TAAA repair could be a safer alternative to the open approach.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38214159
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006190
pii: 00000658-990000000-00742
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflict of interests: LB has received consulting fees and grants from Cook Medical, W. L. Gore, Artivion.

Auteurs

Giacomo Pietro Vigezzi (GP)

Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Collegio Ca' della Paglia, Fondazione Ghislieri, Pavia, Italy.

Chiara Barbati (C)

Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.

Lorenzo Blandi (L)

Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.

Annalisa Guddemi (A)

Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.

Andrea Melloni (A)

Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgical and Clinical Sciences, University of Brescia School of Medicine, ASST Spedali Civili of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.

Simone Salvati (S)

Division of Vascular Surgery-Cardiovascular Department, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy.

Luca Bertoglio (L)

Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgical and Clinical Sciences, University of Brescia School of Medicine, ASST Spedali Civili of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.

Anna Odone (A)

Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
HTA Committee, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.

Classifications MeSH