Systematic review of endovascular stent grafting versus open surgical repair for the elective treatment of arch/descending thoracic aortic aneurysms

Mccarthy, Andrew, Gray, Joanne, Sastry, Priya, Sharples, Linda, Vale, Luke, Cook, Andrew, McMeekin, Peter, Freeman, Carol, Catarino, Pedro and Large, Stephen (2021) Systematic review of endovascular stent grafting versus open surgical repair for the elective treatment of arch/descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. BMJ Open, 11 (3). e043323. ISSN 2044-6055

[img]
Preview
Text
e043323.full.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.

Download (957kB) | Preview
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043323

Abstract

Objective: To review comparisons of the effectiveness of endovascular stent grafting (ESG) against open surgical repair (OSR) for treatment of chronic arch or descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA). Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, WHO International Clinical Trials Routine data collection, current controlled trials, clinical trials and the NIHR portfolio were searched from January 1994 to March 2020. Eligibility criteria for selective studies: All identified studies that compared ESG and OSR, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised and non-RCTs, comparative cohort studies and case–control studies matched on main outcomes were sought. Participants had to receive elective treatments for arch/descending (TAA). Studies were excluded where other thoracic aortic conditions (eg, rupture or dissection) were reported, unless results for patients receiving elective treatment for arch/descending TAA reported separately. Data extraction and synthesis: Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. Risk of Bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects. Where meta-analysis not appropriate, results were reported narratively. Results: Five comparative cohort studies met inclusion criteria, reporting 3955 ESG and 21 197 OSR patients. Meta-analysis of unadjusted short-term (30 day) all-cause mortality favoured ESG (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03)). Heterogeneity identified between larger and smaller studies. Sensitivity analysis of four studies including only descending TAA showed no statistical significance (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.18)), moderate heterogeneity. Meta-analysis of adjusted short-term all-cause mortality favoured ESG (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98)), no heterogeneity. Longer-term (beyond 30 days) survival from all-cause mortality favoured OSR in larger studies and ESG in smaller studies. Freedom from reintervention in the longer-term favoured OSR. Studies reporting short-term non-fatal complications suggest fewer events following ESG. Conclusions: There is limited and increasingly dated evidence on the comparison of ESG and OSR for treatment of arch/descending TAA. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017054565.

Item Type: Article
Subjects: A300 Clinical Medicine
B100 Anatomy, Physiology and Pathology
B700 Nursing
B800 Medical Technology
Department: Faculties > Health and Life Sciences > Nursing, Midwifery and Health
Depositing User: Elena Carlaw
Date Deposited: 09 Mar 2021 09:38
Last Modified: 31 May 2021 14:41
URI: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/45644

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics