Systematic Review on Early and Follow-up Mortality Rate in Octogenarians Treated With a Fenestrated and/or Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair.

IF 1.7 2区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Journal of Endovascular Therapy Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-21 DOI:10.1177/15266028231182798
Petroula Nana, Konstantinos Spanos, Alexandros Brotis, Dominique Fabre, Tara Mastracci, Stephan Haulon
{"title":"Systematic Review on Early and Follow-up Mortality Rate in Octogenarians Treated With a Fenestrated and/or Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair.","authors":"Petroula Nana, Konstantinos Spanos, Alexandros Brotis, Dominique Fabre, Tara Mastracci, Stephan Haulon","doi":"10.1177/15266028231182798","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Advanced age has been related to conflicting outcomes after fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR). The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare 30-day mortality, technical success, and 1-year and 5-year survival in octogenarians and non-octogenarians who underwent F/BEVAR for complex aortic aneurysms.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This meta-analysis was pre-registered to PROSPERO (CRD42022348659). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement was followed. A search of the English literature, via Ovid, using MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases, until August 30, 2022, was executed. Randomized Control Trials and observational studies (2000-2022), with ≥5 patients, reporting on 30-day mortality and 1-year and 5-year survival rates among octogenarians and non-octogenarians after F/BEVAR were eligible. The Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was applied to assess the risk of bias. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality and secondary was 1-year and 5-year survival in octogenarians and non-octogenarians. The outcomes were summarized as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A narrative presentation was selected in case of missing outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial research isolated 3263 articles; 6 retrospective studies were finally included. A total of 7410 patients were managed with F/BEVAR; 1499 patients (20.2%) were ≥80 years old (75.5% males, 259/343). The estimated 30-day mortality was 6% among octogenarians vs 2% in younger patients, with a significantly higher 30-day mortality for patients ≥80 years old (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61-1.81; p=0.0.11; <i>Ι</i><sup>2</sup>=36.01%). Technical success was similar between the groups (OR -0.83; 95% CI -1.74-0.07, p<0.0.001; <i>Ι</i><sup>2</sup>=95.8%). Regarding survival, a narrative approach was decided due to missing data. Two studies reported a statistically significant difference in 1-year survival between groups, with higher mortality in octogenarians (82.5%-90% vs 89.5%-93%), while 3 reported a similar 1-year survival rate in both groups (87.1%-95% vs 88%-89.5%). At 5 years, 3 studies reported a statistically significant lower survival for octogenarians (26.9%-42% vs 61%-71%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Octogenarians treated with F/BEVAR presented higher 30-day mortality while a lower survival rate at 1 and 5 years was reported in the literature. Patient selection is thus mandatory among older patients. Further studies, especially on patient risk stratification, are needed to estimate the F/BEVAR outcomes on elder patients.Clinical ImpactAge may be a factor of increased early and long-term mortality within patients managed for aortic aneurysms. In this analysis, patients over 80 years old were compared to their younger counterparts when managed with fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) . The analysis showed that early mortality was acceptable for octogenrains but significantly higher when compared to patients younger than 80 years. One-year survival rates are controversial. At 5-year follow-up, octogenarians present lower survival but data to provide metanalysis are lacking. Patient selection and risk stratification are mandatory in older candidates for F/BEVAR.</p>","PeriodicalId":50210,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"567-577"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","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/10.1177/15266028231182798","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Advanced age has been related to conflicting outcomes after fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR). The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare 30-day mortality, technical success, and 1-year and 5-year survival in octogenarians and non-octogenarians who underwent F/BEVAR for complex aortic aneurysms.

Materials and methods: This meta-analysis was pre-registered to PROSPERO (CRD42022348659). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement was followed. A search of the English literature, via Ovid, using MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases, until August 30, 2022, was executed. Randomized Control Trials and observational studies (2000-2022), with ≥5 patients, reporting on 30-day mortality and 1-year and 5-year survival rates among octogenarians and non-octogenarians after F/BEVAR were eligible. The Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was applied to assess the risk of bias. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality and secondary was 1-year and 5-year survival in octogenarians and non-octogenarians. The outcomes were summarized as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A narrative presentation was selected in case of missing outcomes.

Results: The initial research isolated 3263 articles; 6 retrospective studies were finally included. A total of 7410 patients were managed with F/BEVAR; 1499 patients (20.2%) were ≥80 years old (75.5% males, 259/343). The estimated 30-day mortality was 6% among octogenarians vs 2% in younger patients, with a significantly higher 30-day mortality for patients ≥80 years old (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61-1.81; p=0.0.11; Ι2=36.01%). Technical success was similar between the groups (OR -0.83; 95% CI -1.74-0.07, p<0.0.001; Ι2=95.8%). Regarding survival, a narrative approach was decided due to missing data. Two studies reported a statistically significant difference in 1-year survival between groups, with higher mortality in octogenarians (82.5%-90% vs 89.5%-93%), while 3 reported a similar 1-year survival rate in both groups (87.1%-95% vs 88%-89.5%). At 5 years, 3 studies reported a statistically significant lower survival for octogenarians (26.9%-42% vs 61%-71%).

Conclusions: Octogenarians treated with F/BEVAR presented higher 30-day mortality while a lower survival rate at 1 and 5 years was reported in the literature. Patient selection is thus mandatory among older patients. Further studies, especially on patient risk stratification, are needed to estimate the F/BEVAR outcomes on elder patients.Clinical ImpactAge may be a factor of increased early and long-term mortality within patients managed for aortic aneurysms. In this analysis, patients over 80 years old were compared to their younger counterparts when managed with fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) . The analysis showed that early mortality was acceptable for octogenrains but significantly higher when compared to patients younger than 80 years. One-year survival rates are controversial. At 5-year follow-up, octogenarians present lower survival but data to provide metanalysis are lacking. Patient selection and risk stratification are mandatory in older candidates for F/BEVAR.

八十多岁老人行开窗和/或分支血管内主动脉修复术早期和随访死亡率的系统评价。
目的:高龄与开窗/分支血管内动脉瘤修复(F/BEVAR)后的相互矛盾的结果有关。本荟萃分析的目的是比较80多岁和非80多岁接受F/BEVAR治疗复杂主动脉瘤患者的30天死亡率、技术成功率、1年和5年生存率。材料和方法:本荟萃分析已在PROSPERO预注册(CRD42022348659)。遵循系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA) 2020声明。通过Ovid,使用MEDLINE, Embase和CENTRAL数据库搜索英语文献,直到2022年8月30日,被执行。随机对照试验和观察性研究(2000-2022),≥5例患者,报告F/BEVAR后80多岁和非80多岁患者的30天死亡率、1年和5年生存率。应用非随机干预研究的偏倚风险(ROBINS-I)工具评估偏倚风险。主要终点是80多岁老人和非80多岁老人的30天死亡率,次要终点是1年和5年生存率。结果以比值比(OR)和95%置信区间(ci)进行总结。在缺少结果的情况下,选择了叙述性的陈述。结果:初步研究分离到文献3263篇;最终纳入6项回顾性研究。共有7410例患者接受F/BEVAR治疗;年龄≥80岁1499例(20.2%),其中男性75.5%(259/343)。80岁以上患者的30天死亡率估计为6%,而年轻患者为2%,≥80岁患者的30天死亡率显著更高(OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61-1.81;p = 0.0.11;Ι2 = 36.01%)。两组间技术成功率相似(OR -0.83;95% CI -1.74-0.07, pΙ2=95.8%)。关于生存,由于缺少数据,我们决定采用叙事方法。两项研究报告了组间1年生存率的统计学差异,80岁以上患者的死亡率更高(82.5%-90% vs 89.5%-93%),而3项研究报告了两组相似的1年生存率(87.1%-95% vs 88%-89.5%)。在5年时,有3项研究报告了80多岁患者的生存率显著降低(26.9%-42% vs 61%-71%)。结论:文献报道,接受F/BEVAR治疗的80多岁患者30天死亡率较高,而1年和5年生存率较低。因此,老年患者的选择是强制性的。需要进一步的研究,特别是患者风险分层,来评估老年患者的F/BEVAR结果。临床冲击可能是增加主动脉瘤患者早期和长期死亡率的一个因素。在这项分析中,将80岁以上的患者与接受开窗或分支血管内主动脉修复(F/BEVAR)治疗的年轻患者进行比较。分析表明,80岁老人的早期死亡率是可以接受的,但与80岁以下的患者相比,早期死亡率要高得多。一年存活率是有争议的。在5年随访中,80岁老人的生存率较低,但缺乏提供meta分析的数据。老年F/BEVAR患者的选择和风险分层是强制性的。
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