A systematic review and meta-analysis of early outcomes after endovascular versus open repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the early results of endovascular vs open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies from January 2006 to March 2018 that compared endovascular vs open repair of TAAA using branched or fenestrated endografts. Data were subjected to a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The outcomes of interest included early mortality, spinal cord injury, renal failure requiring dialysis, stroke, and hospital length of stay. Eight comparative studies met inclusion criteria. There were two retrospective propensity-matched studies, two unadjusted single-center retrospective studies, and four unadjusted national population-based studies. Mortality in the matched studies was equivalent in both groups. Pooled analysis of all unmatched observational studies revealed a survival benefit for endovascular over open repair (relative risk [RR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI],0.45-0.87); P < .01, I² = 47%). Endovascular repair was also associated with lower incidence of spinal cord injury (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.01; P = .05; I² = 28%). For unmatched studies, pooled RR of renal failure requiring dialysis significantly favored endovascular repair (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85; P = .01; I² = 0%), although in the adjusted cohort, risk of dialysis was not different (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.06-15.65; P = 1.00). Postoperative stroke rate was reported in three unadjusted studies and was not different between groups (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.28-2.40; P = .71; I² = 77%). Hospital length of stay was reported in four studies and was shorter in the endovascular group (mean difference, -4.4 days; 95% CI, -6.6 to -1.7; P < .01; I² = 73%). There are few reports comparing endovascular vs open repair of TAAAs. Short-term outcomes may be improved in patients undergoing endovascular treatment of TAAA on the basis of a limited number of studies with high risk of bias. These findings highlight the need for larger comparative studies with standardization of reporting.