Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Proportional meta-analysis of open surgery or fenestrated endograft repair for postdissection thoracoabdominal aneurysms

2021; Elsevier BV; Volume: 74; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.jvs.2021.04.053

1097-6809

Fabio Verzini, Lorenzo Gibello, Gianfranco Varetto, Edoardo Frola, Michele Boero, Luca Porro, Andrea Gattuso, Tania Peretti, Pietro Rispoli,

Infectious Aortic and Vascular Conditions

To determine outcomes of postdissection thoracoabdominal aneurysms by either open or endovascular repair with fenestrated or branched endografts.A systematic review was conducted for open or endovascular repair of postdissection thoracoabdominal aneurysms, between January 2009 and February 2020. A meta-analysis was performed for postoperative complications and both early and late mortality and reinterventions.Fifteen noncomparative studies (eight endovascular repair and seven open repair) were suitable for meta-analysis. Overall, 1337 patients were included, 1068 in the open repair group (73% male; mean age 58 years) and 269 in the endovascular repair group (79% male; mean age 65 years). The 30-day mortality was 6% for open repair vs 3% for endovascular repair (P = .35), whereas the 30-day reintervention rate was 3% for open repair vs 1% for endovascular repair (P = .66). The only significant difference was reported for 30-day respiratory complication rate (30% open repair vs 2% endovascular repair; P < .01). The incidence of spinal cord ischemia was 9% for open repair vs 8% for endovascular repair (P = .95). The mean follow-up was 44 months: 48 months (range, 10-72 months) after open repair and 17 months (range, 12-25 months) after endovascular repair (P < .01). Late aortic reinterventions were more frequent after endovascular repair (11% vs 32%; P < .001). The late overall mortality rate was 19% for open repair vs 7% for endovascular repair (P = .08), whereas aortic-related mortality was 7% for open repair vs 3% for endovascular repair (P = .22).In the absence of comparative studies, this meta-analysis showed that endovascular repair seems to be a viable alternative for patients unfit for open repair.