Effectiveness of endovascular versus open surgical repair for thoracic aortic aneurysm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION\nSince the approval, the TEVAR is widely used for the repair of thoracic aortic aneurysm. However, the long-term mortality and re-intervention rates compared to OSR are unclear. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of the thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with open surgical repair (OSR) specifically for thoracic aortic aneurysms.\n\n\nEVIDENCE ACQUISITION\nWe conducted a comprehensive search in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PROSPERO, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and the Cochrane Library up to November 2020. The main outcomes were early mortality, mid-to-long-term survival, and re-intervention. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology. All analyses were performed using RevMan with the random effect model and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.\n\n\nEVIDENCE SYNTHESIS\nOne systematic review and 15 individual studies were included. Pooled analysis showed that 30-day mortality, stroke, renal failure, and pulmonary complications were significantly lower in TEVAR vs. open surgery. The pooled rate of re-intervention significantly favored the OSR. The long-term survival and mortality favored TEVAR and OSR in one and two studies, respectively, but was non-significant in 7 analyzes.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nEarly clinical outcomes including the 30-day mortality, stroke, renal failure, and pulmonary complications significantly favored the TEVAR. However, the mid-to-long-term re-intervention rate favored the OSR and long-term survival was inconsistent among the studies. The quality of evidence was very low. More studies with longer follow-ups are needed. The use of TEVAR should be decided by taking into account other factors including patient characteristics and preferences, cost, and surgeon expertise.