Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Elective Open Conversion versus Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Repair for Previous Non-Infected Failed Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

Abstract

To evaluate outcomes of patients electively undergoing fenestrated and branched endovascular repair (F/B-EVAR) or open conversion for failed previous non-infected endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library. The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023404091). The review followed the PRISMA guidelines; certainty was assessed through the GRADE and quality through MINORS tools. Outcomes data were pooled separately for F/B-EVAR and open conversion. A random effects meta-analysis of proportions was conducted; heterogeneity was assessed with the I² statistic. Thirty eight studies were included, for a total of 1 645 patients of whom 1 001 (60.9%) underwent an open conversion and 644 (39.1%) a F/B-EVAR. The quality of evidence was generally limited. GRADE certainty was judged low for 30 day death (in both groups) and F/B-EVAR technical success, and very low for the other outcomes. Pooled 30 day death was 2.3% (I² 33%) in the open conversion group and 2.4% (I² 0%) in the F/B-EVAR conversion group (p = .36). Technical success for F/B-EVAR was 94.1% (I² 23%). The pooled 30 day major systemic complications rate was higher in the open conversion (21.3%; I² 74%) than in the F/B-EVAR (15.7%; I² 78%) group (p = .52). At 18 months follow up, the pooled re-intervention rate was 4.5% (I² 58%) in the open conversion and 26% (I² 0%) in the F/B-EVAR group (p < .001), and overall survival was 92.5% (I² 59%) and 81.6% (I² 68%), respectively (p = .005). In the elective setting, and excluding infections, the early results of both open conversion and F/B-EVAR after failed EVAR appear satisfactory. Although open conversion presented with higher complication rates in the first 30 days after surgery, at follow up it seemed to be associated with fewer re-interventions and better survival compared with F/B-EVAR.