Comparison of short-and long-term outcomes between endovascular and open repair for descending thoracic aortic aneurysm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 12.5 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Junning Liu, Dan Gou, Kanglin Xu, Ziao Lu, Peidong Li, Yong Lei, Yongjie Wang, Yuting Yang, Shiqiang Liu, Guiying Zhu
{"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.

胸降主动脉瘤血管内和开放性修复的短期和长期疗效比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析
目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估和比较血管内与开放式修复治疗胸降主动脉动脉瘤(DTAA)患者的疗效。方法:系统检索PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆的相关研究。结果数据,包括术后死亡率和发病率、手术细节、全因生存、无主动脉相关生存和无主动脉相关再干预,由两位作者以标准化的方式独立提取。结果:29项研究包括49 972例患者(22 049例血管内修复;包括27923例开放式修复)。血管内修复与较低的术后死亡率相关[奇比(OR): 0.57, 95%可信区间(CI): 0.45-0.72;I2 = 72.58%]和发病率。就长期生存而言,血管内修复使患者免于主动脉相关生存[风险比(HR): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.93, P = 0.012],但较差免于主动脉相关再干预(HR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.45-3.04, P < 0.001)。具有里程碑意义的分析显示,开放修复组16个月以上的全因生存率更高(HR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.53-1.75, P < 0.001)。此外,在完整DTAA患者亚组中,接受开放式修复的患者术后死亡率更高(OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.38-0.88;I2 = 83.34%),但超过7个月的全因生存率(HR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.61 ~ 1.84, P < 0.001)优于血管内修复组。结论:在接受DTAA治疗的患者中,血管内修复与主动脉相关生存更好,术后死亡率和发病率风险更低,干预时间、重症监护病房时间和住院时间比接受开放式修复的患者短。与血管内修复术相比,开放式修复术的长期全因生存率和主动脉相关再干预的自由度显著提高。
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
17.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
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