Comparison of short-and long-term outcomes between endovascular and open repair for descending thoracic aortic aneurysm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
{"title":"Comparison of short-and long-term outcomes between endovascular and open repair for descending thoracic aortic aneurysm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Junning Liu, Dan Gou, Kanglin Xu, Ziao Lu, Peidong Li, Yong Lei, Yongjie Wang, Yuting Yang, Shiqiang Liu, Guiying Zhu","doi":"10.1097/JS9.0000000000002230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of endovascular versus open repair for the treatment of patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTAA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies was performed. Outcome data, including postoperative mortality and morbidity, operative details, all-cause survival, freedom from aortic-related survival and freedom from aortic-related re-intervention, were independently extracted by two authors in a standardized way.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-nine studies comprising 49 972 patients (22 049 endovascular repair; 27 923 open repair) were included. Endovascular repair was associated with a significantly lower postoperative mortality rate [odd ratio (OR): 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.72; I 2 = 72.58%] and morbidity. In terms of long-term survival, endovascular repair yielded better freedom from aortic-related survival [hazard ratio (HR): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.93, P = 0.012] but inferior freedom from aortic-related reintervention (HR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.45-3.04, P < 0.001). Landmark analysis revealed that the open repair group experienced better all-cause survival beyond 16 months (HR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.53-1.75, P < 0.001). In addition, in the subgroup of patients with intact DTAA, those who underwent open repair exhibited a higher rate of postoperative mortality (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.38-0.88; I 2 = 83.34%) but had better all-cause survival beyond 7 months (HR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.61-1.84, P < 0.001) than those who underwent endovascular repair.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among patients treated for DTAA, endovascular repair was associated with better freedom from aortic-related survival, a lower risk for postoperative mortality and morbidity, and shorter lengths of intervention, intensive care unit stay, and hospital stay than those who underwent open repair. Open repair yielded significantly better long-term all-cause survival and freedom from aortic-related re-intervention than endovascular repair.</p>","PeriodicalId":14401,"journal":{"name":"International journal of surgery","volume":" ","pages":"2662-2674"},"PeriodicalIF":12.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000002230","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of endovascular versus open repair for the treatment of patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTAA).
Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies was performed. Outcome data, including postoperative mortality and morbidity, operative details, all-cause survival, freedom from aortic-related survival and freedom from aortic-related re-intervention, were independently extracted by two authors in a standardized way.
Results: Twenty-nine studies comprising 49 972 patients (22 049 endovascular repair; 27 923 open repair) were included. Endovascular repair was associated with a significantly lower postoperative mortality rate [odd ratio (OR): 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.72; I 2 = 72.58%] and morbidity. In terms of long-term survival, endovascular repair yielded better freedom from aortic-related survival [hazard ratio (HR): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.93, P = 0.012] but inferior freedom from aortic-related reintervention (HR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.45-3.04, P < 0.001). Landmark analysis revealed that the open repair group experienced better all-cause survival beyond 16 months (HR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.53-1.75, P < 0.001). In addition, in the subgroup of patients with intact DTAA, those who underwent open repair exhibited a higher rate of postoperative mortality (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.38-0.88; I 2 = 83.34%) but had better all-cause survival beyond 7 months (HR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.61-1.84, P < 0.001) than those who underwent endovascular repair.
Conclusion: Among patients treated for DTAA, endovascular repair was associated with better freedom from aortic-related survival, a lower risk for postoperative mortality and morbidity, and shorter lengths of intervention, intensive care unit stay, and hospital stay than those who underwent open repair. Open repair yielded significantly better long-term all-cause survival and freedom from aortic-related re-intervention than endovascular repair.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Surgery (IJS) has a broad scope, encompassing all surgical specialties. Its primary objective is to facilitate the exchange of crucial ideas and lines of thought between and across these specialties.By doing so, the journal aims to counter the growing trend of increasing sub-specialization, which can result in "tunnel-vision" and the isolation of significant surgical advancements within specific specialties.