Mortality and neurologic complications after repair of aortic arch pathology with elephant trunk procedures: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
International Angiology Pub Date : 2022-10-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-02 DOI:10.23736/S0392-9590.22.04924-0
Afonso Ferreira, José Oliveira-Pinto, Armando Mansilha
{"title":"Mortality and neurologic complications after repair of aortic arch pathology with elephant trunk procedures: a systematic review with meta-analysis.","authors":"Afonso Ferreira,&nbsp;José Oliveira-Pinto,&nbsp;Armando Mansilha","doi":"10.23736/S0392-9590.22.04924-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique was developed as an alternative to the conventional elephant trunk (cET) procedure for the repair of complex aortic arch pathology. However, short term results between these different procedures are sparsely described. This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to compare short term outcomes between FET and cET in the repair of aortic arch pathology.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases were searched for studies comparing performance of FET and cET procedures in patients with aortic arch pathology. The primary outcome of interest was early mortality, defined as 30-day or in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were stroke, and spinal cord ischemia (SCI). Meta-analysis utilizing the random-effects model was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) software, version 5.4.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>Ten studies, comprising 1481 patients with aortic arch pathology, were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant reduction of early mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.97) in the FET group. For neurologic outcomes, no significant differences were noted in stroke risk between both groups (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.83-1.75), but an increased risk of SCI was present in FET patients (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.05-4.10).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>FET appears to be associated with a significant lower early mortality, at costs of greater SCI risk. Larger studies are needed to provide confident recommendations towards preferential use of either procedure.</p>","PeriodicalId":13709,"journal":{"name":"International Angiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Angiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0392-9590.22.04924-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique was developed as an alternative to the conventional elephant trunk (cET) procedure for the repair of complex aortic arch pathology. However, short term results between these different procedures are sparsely described. This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to compare short term outcomes between FET and cET in the repair of aortic arch pathology.

Evidence acquisition: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases were searched for studies comparing performance of FET and cET procedures in patients with aortic arch pathology. The primary outcome of interest was early mortality, defined as 30-day or in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were stroke, and spinal cord ischemia (SCI). Meta-analysis utilizing the random-effects model was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) software, version 5.4.

Evidence synthesis: Ten studies, comprising 1481 patients with aortic arch pathology, were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant reduction of early mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.97) in the FET group. For neurologic outcomes, no significant differences were noted in stroke risk between both groups (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.83-1.75), but an increased risk of SCI was present in FET patients (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.05-4.10).

Conclusions: FET appears to be associated with a significant lower early mortality, at costs of greater SCI risk. Larger studies are needed to provide confident recommendations towards preferential use of either procedure.

采用象鼻手术修复主动脉弓病理后的死亡率和神经系统并发症:一项荟萃分析的系统综述。
简介:冷冻象鼻(FET)技术是传统象鼻(cET)手术修复复杂主动脉弓病理的替代技术。然而,这些不同手术之间的短期结果很少被描述。本系统综述与荟萃分析旨在比较FET和cET在主动脉弓病理修复中的短期结果。证据获取:检索PubMed, Web of Science和Scopus电子数据库,比较FET和cET手术在主动脉弓病变患者中的表现。研究的主要终点是早期死亡率,定义为30天或住院死亡率。次要结局是脑卒中和脊髓缺血(SCI)。meta分析采用随机效应模型,采用Review Manager (RevMan)软件5.4版。证据综合:纳入10项研究,1481例主动脉弓病理患者。荟萃分析显示,早期死亡率显著降低(优势比[OR], 0.63;95% CI, 0.41-0.97)。神经系统预后方面,两组卒中风险无显著差异(OR, 1.21;95% CI, 0.83-1.75),但FET患者发生脊髓损伤的风险增加(OR, 2.07;95% ci, 1.05-4.10)。结论:FET似乎与较低的早期死亡率相关,但代价是更大的脊髓损伤风险。需要更大规模的研究来为优先使用这两种方法提供可靠的建议。
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
International Angiology
International Angiology 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
28.60%
发文量
89
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Angiology publishes scientific papers on angiology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of editorials, original articles, review articles, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines. The journal aims to provide its readers with papers of the highest quality and impact through a process of careful peer review and editorial work. Duties and responsibilities of all the subjects involved in the editorial process are summarized at Publication ethics. Manuscripts are expected to comply with the instructions to authors which conform to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Editors by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
×
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