Prognosis review and time-to-event data meta-analysis of endovascular aneurysm repair outside versus within instructions for use of aortic endograft devices
Ημερομηνία
2020Γλώσσα
en
Λέξη-κλειδί
Επιτομή
Background: Our objective was to investigate whether patients undergoing standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) outside the instructions for use (IFU) have worse outcomes than patients treated within IFU. Methods: We conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Electronic bibliographic sources were searched up to January 2019 using a combination of controlled vocabulary (thesaurus) and free-text terms to identify studies comparing outcomes of EVAR in patients treated outside versus within IFU. Pooled estimates of dichotomous outcomes were calculated using odds ratio (OR) or risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We conducted a time-to-event data meta-analysis using the inverse-variance method and reported the results as summary hazard ratio (HR) and associated 95% CI. Random-effects methods of meta-analysis were applied. We formed meta-regression models to explore heterogeneity as a result of changes in practice over time. Results: We identified 17 observational cohort studies published between 2011 and 2017, reporting a total of 4498 patients. The pooled prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU was 40% (95% CI, 33-48). Nonadherence to IFU was not associated with increased risk of perioperative mortality (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, −0.00 to 0.01; P = .23), aneurysm rupture (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.30-5.93; P = .70), aneurysm-related mortality (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.20-3.84; P = .86), technical failure (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, −0.03 to 0.05; P = .56), requirement for adjunctive procedures (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.81-2.71; P = .20), type I endoleak (HR, 2.28; 95% CI, 0.58-8.91; P = .24), aneurysm sac expansion (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.55-1.33; P = .49), or aneurysm-related reintervention (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.81-1.34; P = .74). The overall mortality was significantly higher in patients treated outside the IFU (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42; P = .03). Meta-regression showed that the prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU has increased over time (P = .019). Conclusions: Standard EVAR outside the IFU was not found to have worse aneurysm-related outcomes than treatment within the IFU. Standard EVAR outside the IFU could be considered in selected patients who are deemed high risk for complex open or endovascular surgery. © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
The Association of Spondylitis and Aortic Aneurysm Disease
Patelis N., Nana P., Spanos K., Tasoudis P., Brotis A., Bisdas T., Kouvelos G. (2021)Objectives: The aim of this study is to assess any relation between spondylitis and aortic aneurysmal disease by reviewing the current literature. Methods: A systematic search was undertaken using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL ... -
Clipping Versus Coiling in Anterior Circulation Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Meta-Analysis
Fotakopoulos G., Tsianaka E., Fountas K., Makris D., Spyrou M., Hernesniemi J. (2017)Objective To evaluate open surgical versus endovascular repair of anterior circulation ruptured intracranial aneurysms based on operative mortality, permanent neurologic deficit, late mortality, and need for reintervention. ... -
Endovascular treatment of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal type IV aortic aneurysms with fenestrated technology
Georgiadis G.S., Van Herwaarden J.A., Saengprakai W., Georgakarakos E.I., Argyriou C., Schoretsanitis N., Giannoukas A.D., Lazarides M.K., Moll F.L. (2017)The establishment use of fenestrated and branched devices to treat complex aortic aneurysms as a first-line management option has been previously reported. This article reviews the current literature of the use of fenestrated ...