Endovascular Repair of Aortic Arch Zones 0 to 2 Using Physician-Modified Endografts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.7 2区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Georgios I Karaolanis, Vladimir Makaloski, Silvan Jungi, Mevlut Celik, Michel J Bosiers, Drosos Kotelis
{"title":"Endovascular Repair of Aortic Arch Zones 0 to 2 Using Physician-Modified Endografts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Georgios I Karaolanis, Vladimir Makaloski, Silvan Jungi, Mevlut Celik, Michel J Bosiers, Drosos Kotelis","doi":"10.1177/15266028241292485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to collect all the available evidence concerning technical success and early and mid-term clinical outcomes of physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies in zones 0 to 2.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review to identify all the eligible studies that reported outcomes to the PMEGs for aortic arch pathologies in zones 0 to 2 and then conducted a qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis of the results. The main outcomes were technical success, mortality, stroke rate, bridging stents' complications, and reintervention rate. We estimated pooled proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 134 study titles were identified by the initial search strategy, of which 14 (zone 0 n=6; zone 1 n=1; zones 1 t o2: n=7) were considered eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. A total of 777 patients (80% male; 62±6 years) were identified among the eligible studies. The pooled technical success for the PMEG in zone 0 was 96.6% (95% CI=93.9%-98.2%), whereas in zones 1 to 2 was 95.9% (95% CI=92.9%-97.6%). The pooled 30-day mortality was 4.6% (95% CI=2.0%-10%) and 4.3% (95% CI=2.2%-8.2%) for zones 0 and 1 to 2, respectively, whereas the prevalence of late mortality was 8.2% (95% CI=4.7%-14%) and 3.4% (95% CI=1.9%-6%). The pooled stoke rate was 3.7% (95% CI=2.1%-6.4%) in zone 0 and 2.7% (95% CI=1.4%-5%) in zones 1 to 2. The early reintervention rate was 3.5% (95% CI=1.5%-8.0%) and 4.2% (95% CI=2.4%-7.2%) for zones 0 and 1 to 2, respectively, whereas during the mean follow-up of 26 months was 8.5% (95% CI=3.0%-21%) and 1.9% (95% CI=0.8%-4.3%). The pooled bridging's stent instability was 3.9% (95% CI=1.1%-12.9%) in zone 0 and 3.2% (95% CI=1.8%-5.8%) in zones 1 to 2.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Endovascular repair of aortic arch pathologies using PMEGs seems to present a satisfactory level of technical success and a low mortality rate. To attain clearer conclusions, further research employing randomized controlled trials, longer-term follow-up, and consistent reporting of results is warranted.</p><p><strong>Clinical impact: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies analyzed the short- and mid-term outcomes of aortic arch aneurysm and/or dissection using physician-modified endografts. It separately examined the outcomes from zones 0 and 1-2 of the aortic arch. Fourteen studies (n=777 patients) were included. Overall technical success rates were 96.6% for zone 0 and 95.9% for zone 1-2. Regarding early mortality and stroke rates, no significant differences were observed, while late mortality was higher in patients in zone 0. The late reintervention rate favored patients treated with PMEGs in zone 1-2. The physician-modified technique appears to be an excellent and rapidly available alternative for the treatment of aortic arch diseases.</p>","PeriodicalId":50210,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"15266028241292485"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028241292485","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to collect all the available evidence concerning technical success and early and mid-term clinical outcomes of physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies in zones 0 to 2.

Material and methods: We performed a systematic review to identify all the eligible studies that reported outcomes to the PMEGs for aortic arch pathologies in zones 0 to 2 and then conducted a qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis of the results. The main outcomes were technical success, mortality, stroke rate, bridging stents' complications, and reintervention rate. We estimated pooled proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: A total of 134 study titles were identified by the initial search strategy, of which 14 (zone 0 n=6; zone 1 n=1; zones 1 t o2: n=7) were considered eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. A total of 777 patients (80% male; 62±6 years) were identified among the eligible studies. The pooled technical success for the PMEG in zone 0 was 96.6% (95% CI=93.9%-98.2%), whereas in zones 1 to 2 was 95.9% (95% CI=92.9%-97.6%). The pooled 30-day mortality was 4.6% (95% CI=2.0%-10%) and 4.3% (95% CI=2.2%-8.2%) for zones 0 and 1 to 2, respectively, whereas the prevalence of late mortality was 8.2% (95% CI=4.7%-14%) and 3.4% (95% CI=1.9%-6%). The pooled stoke rate was 3.7% (95% CI=2.1%-6.4%) in zone 0 and 2.7% (95% CI=1.4%-5%) in zones 1 to 2. The early reintervention rate was 3.5% (95% CI=1.5%-8.0%) and 4.2% (95% CI=2.4%-7.2%) for zones 0 and 1 to 2, respectively, whereas during the mean follow-up of 26 months was 8.5% (95% CI=3.0%-21%) and 1.9% (95% CI=0.8%-4.3%). The pooled bridging's stent instability was 3.9% (95% CI=1.1%-12.9%) in zone 0 and 3.2% (95% CI=1.8%-5.8%) in zones 1 to 2.

Conclusions: Endovascular repair of aortic arch pathologies using PMEGs seems to present a satisfactory level of technical success and a low mortality rate. To attain clearer conclusions, further research employing randomized controlled trials, longer-term follow-up, and consistent reporting of results is warranted.

Clinical impact: This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies analyzed the short- and mid-term outcomes of aortic arch aneurysm and/or dissection using physician-modified endografts. It separately examined the outcomes from zones 0 and 1-2 of the aortic arch. Fourteen studies (n=777 patients) were included. Overall technical success rates were 96.6% for zone 0 and 95.9% for zone 1-2. Regarding early mortality and stroke rates, no significant differences were observed, while late mortality was higher in patients in zone 0. The late reintervention rate favored patients treated with PMEGs in zone 1-2. The physician-modified technique appears to be an excellent and rapidly available alternative for the treatment of aortic arch diseases.

使用医生改良的内植物对主动脉弓 0 至 2 区进行血管内修复:系统综述与元分析》。
目的:本研究旨在收集有关医生改良内植物(PMEGs)治疗主动脉弓0至2区病变的技术成功率和早期及中期临床疗效的所有可用证据:我们进行了一项系统性回顾,以确定所有符合条件的研究,这些研究报告了 PMEGs 治疗 0 至 2 区主动脉弓病变的结果,然后对结果进行了定性综合和荟萃分析。主要结果包括技术成功率、死亡率、中风率、桥接支架并发症和再介入率。我们估算了汇总比例和 95% 置信区间 (CI):最初的搜索策略共确定了 134 项研究,其中 14 项(0 区 n=6;1 区 n=1;1 区至 2 区:n=7)被认为符合纳入荟萃分析的条件。在符合条件的研究中,共发现了 777 名患者(80% 为男性;62±6 岁)。0区PMEG的汇总技术成功率为96.6%(95% CI=93.9%-98.2%),而1至2区为95.9%(95% CI=92.9%-97.6%)。0区和1至2区的30天总死亡率分别为4.6%(95% CI=2.0%-10%)和4.3%(95% CI=2.2%-8.2%),而晚期死亡率分别为8.2%(95% CI=4.7%-14%)和3.4%(95% CI=1.9%-6%)。0区和1至2区的早期再干预率分别为3.5%(95% CI=1.5%-8.0%)和4.2%(95% CI=2.4%-7.2%),而在26个月的平均随访期间,再干预率分别为8.5%(95% CI=3.0%-21%)和1.9%(95% CI=0.8%-4.3%)。汇总的桥接支架不稳定性在0区为3.9%(95% CI=1.1%-12.9%),在1至2区为3.2%(95% CI=1.8%-5.8%):使用 PMEGs 对主动脉弓病变进行血管内修复的技术成功率令人满意,死亡率较低。为了得出更明确的结论,有必要通过随机对照试验、更长期的随访和一致的结果报告进行进一步研究:这项系统性回顾和荟萃分析观察性研究分析了主动脉弓动脉瘤和/或夹层的短期和中期疗效。研究分别考察了主动脉弓 0 区和 1-2 区的疗效。共纳入 14 项研究(n=777 名患者)。0 区和 1-2 区的总体技术成功率分别为 96.6% 和 95.9%。在早期死亡率和中风率方面,没有观察到显著差异,而 0 区患者的晚期死亡率较高。医生改良技术似乎是治疗主动脉弓疾病的一种极佳且快速可用的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
203
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Endovascular Therapy (formerly the Journal of Endovascular Surgery) was established in 1994 as a forum for all physicians, scientists, and allied healthcare professionals who are engaged or interested in peripheral endovascular techniques and technology. An official publication of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists (ISEVS), the Journal of Endovascular Therapy publishes peer-reviewed articles of interest to clinicians and researchers in the field of peripheral endovascular interventions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信