Dataset Information

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair versus open chest surgical repair for patients with type B aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Aim: This meta-analysis study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of TEVAR versus OCSR for TBAD patients.Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library to identify studies compared the effectiveness of TEVAR and OCSR in TBAD patients from the inception up to July 2019. The summary results were calculated using a random-effects model.Results: The electronic search identified 1,894 studies, and 18 studies with 9,664 TBAD patients were included. We noted patients received TEVAR were associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality, acute renal failure, respiratory failure, and bleeding as compared with OCSR, whereas no significant differences between groups for the risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, paraplegia, mesenteric ischaemia/infarction, reinterventions, sepsis, and spinal cord ischaemia.Conclusions: The findings of this meta-analysis study suggested that TEVAR resulted in more short-term survival benefits. Moreover, the reduced risk of acute renal failure, respiratory failure and bleeding was detected in TEVAR group. The treatment effects of TEVAR versus OCSR on specific complications should be further verified by a study with high-level of evidence.Key messageComprehensive collected studies investigated the treatment effectiveness between TEVAR and OCSR for TBAD patientsTEVAR resulted in more survival benefits, in addition to lower risk of acute renal failure, respiratory failure and bleedingThe results of stratified analyses according to patients' characteristics were conducted.

SUBMITTER: Liu J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7877884 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov - Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair versus open chest surgical repair for patients with type B aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liu Jianping J Xia Juan J Yan Gaowu G Zhang Yongheng Y Ge Jing J Cao Lin L

Annals of medicine 20191025 7-8

Aim: This meta-analysis study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of TEVAR versus OCSR for TBAD patients.Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library to identify studies compared the effectiveness of TEVAR and OCSR in TBAD patients from the inception up to July 2019. The summary results were calculated using a random-effects model.Results: The electronic search identified 1,894 studies, and 18 studies with 9,664 TBAD patients were include ...[more]

PMID: 31599180

Similar Datasets

Project description:For descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs), it is generally considered that thoracic endovascular aortic repairs (TEVARs) reduce operative morbidity and mortality compared with open surgical repair. However, long-term differences in survival of patients have not been demonstrated, and an increased need for aortic reintervention has been observed. Many assume that TEVAR becomes less cost-effective through time because of higher rates of reintervention and surveillance imaging. This study investigated midterm outcomes and hospital costs of TEVAR compared with open TAA repair.This was a retrospective, single-institution review of elective TAA repairs between 2005 and 2012. Patient demographics, operative outcomes, reintervention rates, and hospital costs were assessed. The literature was also reviewed to determine commonly observed complication and reintervention rates for TEVAR and open repair. Monte Carlo simulation was used to model and to forecast hospital costs for TEVAR and open TAA repair up to 3 years after intervention.Our cohort consisted of 131 TEVARs and 27 open repairs. TEVAR patients were significantly older (67.2 vs 58.7 years old; P = .02) and trended toward a more severe comorbidity profile. Operative mortality for TEVAR and open repair was 5.3% and 3.7%, respectively (P = 1.0). There was a trend toward more complications in the TEVAR group, although not statistically significant (all P > .05). In-hospital costs were significantly greater in the TEVAR group ($52,008 vs $37,172; P = .001). However, cost modeling by use of reported complication and reintervention rates from the literature overlaid with our cost data produced a higher cost for the open group in-hospital ($55,109 vs $48,006) and at 3 years ($58,426 vs $52,825). Interestingly, TEVAR hospital costs, not reintervention rates, were the most significant driver of cost in the TEVAR group.Our institutional data showed a trend toward lower mortality and complication rates with open TAA repair, with significantly lower costs within this cohort compared with TEVAR. These findings were likely, at least in part, to be due to the milder comorbidity profile of these patients. In contrast, cost modeling by Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated lower costs with TEVAR compared with open repair at all time points up to 3 years after intervention. Our institutional data show that with appropriate selection of patients, open repair can be performed safely with low complication rates comparable to those of TEVAR. The cost model argues that despite the costs associated with more frequent surveillance imaging and reinterventions, TEVAR remains the more cost-effective option even years after TAA repair.

Project description:BACKGROUND:As surgical mortality decreases and endovascular utilization increases, it is unknown whether volume-outcome relationships exist in thoracic aortic dissection repair. We characterized volume-outcome relationships for surgical and endovascular management of thoracic aortic dissection. METHODS:Patients aged more than 18 years undergoing repair of thoracic aortic dissection in the United States between 2010 and 2014 were identified in seven all-payer state inpatient administrative databases. Patients were divided into groups based on type of repair: surgical repair of type A dissection (TAAD), surgical repair of type B dissection (TBAD), and endovascular repair (TEVAR). Hierarchical logistic regression models evaluated the association between hospital volume and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS:Overall in-hospital mortality rate was 13.4% (890 of 6650), highest after TAAD (463 of 2918, 15.9%), followed by TBAD (270 of 1934, 14.0%) and TEVAR (157 of 1798, 8.7%). Volume-outcome relationships for adjusted in-hospital mortality were demonstrated for TAAD and TBAD (P-trend < .001), but not TEVAR (P-trend = .11). Adjusted in-hospital mortality differed most for TAAD (fewer than 3 cases per year: 21%, 95% confidence interval, 18% to 24%; vs 11 or more cases per year: 12%, 95% confidence interval, 8% to 16%; P < .001) and TBAD (fewer than 2 cases per year: 18%, 95% confidence interval, 15% to 22%; vs 11 or more cases per year: 9%, 95% confidence interval, 5% to 12%; P < .001), whereas TEVAR did not differ between quartiles. Adjusted mortality was lower at centers with 26 or more overall annual thoracic dissection repairs, compared with any of the three lower-volume quartiles (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrated lower mortality at high-volume hospitals for overall repair of aortic dissection, persisting separately for surgical repair of TAAD and TBAD, but not TEVAR. As endovascular technology advances and practice patterns consequently change, analyses should focus on understanding the balance between procedural volume, mortality, and access to care for thoracic aortic dissection.

Project description:BackgroundJuxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms pose a significant challenge whether managed endovascularly or by open surgery. Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is now well established, but few studies have compared it with open surgical repair (OSR). The aim of this systematic review was to compare short- and long-term outcomes of FEVAR and OSR for the management of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms.MethodsA literature search was conducted of the Ovid Medline, EMBASE and PubMed databases. Reasons for exclusion were series with fewer than 20 patients, studies published before 2007 and those concerning ruptured aneurysms. Owing to variance in definitions, the terms 'juxta/para/suprarenal' were used; thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms were excluded. Primary outcomes were 30-day/in-hospital mortality and renal insufficiency. Secondary outcomes included major complication rates, rate of reintervention and rates of endoleak.ResultsTwenty-seven studies were identified, involving 2974 patients. Study designs included 11 case series, 14 series within retrospective cohort studies, one case-control study and a single prospective non-randomized trial. The pooled early postoperative mortality rate following FEVAR was 3·3 (95 per cent c.i. 2·0 to 5·0) per cent, compared with 4·2 (2·9 to 5·7) per cent after OSR. After FEVAR, the rate of postoperative renal insufficiency was 16·2 (10·4 to 23·0) per cent, compared with 23·8 (15·2 to 33·6) per cent after OSR. The major early complication rate following FEVAR was 23·1 (16·8 to 30·1) per cent versus 43·5 (34·4 to 52·8) per cent after OSR. The rate of late reintervention after FEVAR was higher than that after OSR: 11·1 (6·7 to 16·4) versus 2·0 (0·6 to 4·3) per cent respectively.ConclusionNo significant difference was noted in 30-day mortality; however, FEVAR was associated with significantly lower morbidity than OSR. Long-term durability is a concern, with far higher reintervention rates after FEVAR.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) is a rare but life-threatening complication after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (TBAD). A graft inversion technique was applied to distal anastomosis in total arch replacement for this complicated dissection. We reviewed our results of the processing for this serious complication. The aim is to evaluate the feasibility of this technology. METHODS:From January 2013 to December 2017, 20 patients (80% male, mean age 50.9?±?9.5?years) with retrograde type A aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection were scheduled for surgical treatment at our center. All patients underwent an ascending aorta and total aortic arch replacement procedure. The 20 patients were divided into two groups, 1 group involved 9 patients underwent surgery using stepwise technique; the graft inversion technique was performed in the other group containing the remaining 11 patients. The postoperative variables, including cardiopulmonary bypass time, the circulatory arrest time, the aortic cross clamp time, were analyzed. Meanwhile we also analyzed the postoperative mortality and complications to evaluate the early and mid-term outcomes of surgical treatment for RTAD after TEVAR. RESULTS:In-hospital mortality was 10% (2 of 20 patients). No patient developed postoperative paraplegia, renal failure, stroke, or distal anastomotic bleeding. Two patients developed renal insufficiency, one developed neurologic insufficiency, and one developed pulmonary infection, all of which were managed accordingly. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, and circulatory arrest time were significantly shorter in the graft inversion group than in the stepwise group (165.8?±?37.9?min versus 206.1?±?46.8?min, p<0.05; 34.5?±?5.6?min versus 42.4?±?9.5?min, p<0.05, respectively). The 18 survivors had a mean follow-up of 25.8?±?18.2?months, and all patients remained alive and well. CONCLUSION:Graft inversion can enable a secure distal anastomosis under good surgical exposure, resulting in reduced durations of CPB, and circulatory arrest for RTAD after TEVAR. Surgical treatment could be a safe alternative for treatment of this patients.

Project description:ImportanceThoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been adopted rapidly for treating traumatic thoracic aortic injury (TAI). The long-term durability and efficacy remain unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the long-term outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair and those of open repair (OR) for traumatic TAI.Design, setting, participantsThis nationwide cohort study used Taiwan's National Health Insurance Database to evaluate patients with traumatic TAI between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2013. This single-payer National Health Insurance program covered more than 99.9% of the Taiwanese population. Those who received OR or TEVAR for TAI by propensity score matching were included. Data analysis was conducted in October 2017.ExposuresThoracic endovascular aortic repair vs open repair.Main outcomes and measuresIn-hospital outcomes, all-cause mortality, aorta reintervention, and stroke during follow-up.ResultsOf the 287 patients (mean [SD] age, 41.66 [17.98] years; 80.5% male) who received OR or TEVAR for TAI, propensity score matching yielded 100 patients each in the OR and TEVAR groups. After propensity score matching, in-hospital mortality risk was significantly lower in the TEVAR group (9 [9.0%]) than in the OR group (27 [27.0%]; TEVAR vs open repair: odds ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.12-0.60). With a mean (SD) follow-up of 2.80 (2.63) years, the proportion of survivors was 71.9% at 1 year, 70.8% at 2 years, 68.2% at 3 years, and 65.1% at 5 years in the OR group vs 88.9% at 1 year, 88.9% at 2 years, 88.9% at 3 years, and 88.9% at 5 years in the TEVAR group (log-rank test, P < .001). The TEVAR group had only 2 events (2%) of late reintervention and 1 event (1%) of late cerebrovascular accident. The proportion of freedom from reintervention was 100% at 1 year, 100% at 2 years, 100% at 3 years, and 100% at 5 years in the OR group vs 97.4% at 1 year, 97.4% at 2 years, 97.4% at 3 years, and 97.4% at 5 years in the TEVAR group (log-rank test, P = .18).Conclusion and relevanceCompared with OR, TEVAR was associated with better long-term outcomes, mainly owing to lower mortality during the perioperative period. In addition, TEVAR was associated with a similar rate of survival and reintervention after hospital discharge.

Dataset Information

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair versus open chest surgical repair for patients with type B aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair versus open chest surgical repair for patients with type B aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure