Endovascular Versus Open Surgical Repair for Ruptured Descending Aortic Pathologies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Abstract

Ruptured descending thoracic aorta (rDTA) is an harmful condition requiring emergent treatment. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is replacing the traditional open repair in the majority of descending thoracic aortic disease. An unanimous agreement regarding the optimal approach to treat rDTA has not been reached yet due to the lack of evidences supporting the improvement of long-term survival. The present meta-analysis of observational cohort studies aims to estimate the outcome of endovascular (TEVAR) versus surgical (OR) approach in the treatment of rDTA. Prisma Statement for performing and reporting meta-analysis has been used. MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library databases were searched. A meta-analysis of observational cohort studies that examined the outcomes after OR and TEVAR for the management of rDTA was performed. A total of 10,466 patients with rDTA were screened. Endovascular therapy was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality compared with open repair (Risk Ratio[RR] 0.63; 95% CI0.57–0.70). The risk of stroke rate was not statistically different between endovascular versus open approach (RR0.86; 95% CI0.62–1.19). Endovascular treatment had benefits on paraplegia (RR0.70; 95% CI0.55–0.91) and other neurological complications (RR0.24; 95% CI0.10–0.56). TEVAR was associated with lower renal failure, cardiac complications and vascular injuries. Late mortality (Hazard Ratio[HR] 0.84; 95% CI0.63–1.13) and re-intervention rate (RR1.48; 95% CI0.80–2.74) were not significantly different between TEVAR and OR. TEVAR seems to offer advantages in terms of early mortality and complications rate. Moreover, data on late mortality and re-intervention are encouraging to consider endovascular treatment comparable to open repair for acute thoracic aorta emergency on long-term follow-up.