Endovascular stent versus open surgery in the acute type B aortic dissection: a meta-analysis
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-4497.2011.010.005
- VernacularTitle:主动脉腔内覆膜支架置入术与开放手术治疗急性B型主动脉夹层的meta分析
- Author:
Hao ZHANG
;
Zhiwei WANG
;
Yi GUO
;
Xiaofeng DAI
;
Lei ZHAO
;
Hongbing WU
;
Xiaoping HU
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Aneurysm,dissecting;
Cardiac surgical procedures;
Meta-analysis;
Stent
- From:
Chinese Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2011;27(10):588-593
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective Acute type B aortic dissection (ATBAD) is a life-threatening condition.Open surgical (OS) repair with a prosthetic graft has been a conventional treatment for ATBAD.Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR),as a less invasive and potentially safer technique,has been used increasingly in recent decade.Evidence to support the use of TEVARin these patients is needed.This meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of TEVAR versus conventional OS in patients with ATBAD.Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (last searched 2010,Issue 4),MEDLINE,EMBASE,CINAHL,Web of Science 、OpenSIGLE 、National Technical Information Service(NTIS) 、CNKI 、Chinese Biomedicine Database 、VIP、WanFang Data for clinical trials and additional sources for published and unpublished trials until 1/18/2011.Controlled trials in which patients with ATBAD were assigned to TEVAR or OS repair were included.The authors extracted independently the following information using a specifically designed data collection form for individual trial included:first author and the year of publication,study population,interventions used (TEVAR or OS repair) and outcomes (short-term mortality,short-term complications,long-term complications and long-term mortality rates).Data were extracted on the relevant methodological domains to minimize the bias in the analysis with use of the Cochrane methods for bias assessment and Grading of Recommendations Assessments Development and Evaluation (GRADE)methods.For each outcome,GRADE criteria and Cochrane Bias evaluation were used to evaluate the quality of the evidence with regard to inconsistency (heterogeneity),indirectness,imprecision,and other potential sources of bias,such as publication and reporting bias.Revman5.0 and GRAED profiler 3.2.2 software were used to analyze the data.Results Five trials (318 participants) were included in the analysis.The five studies were limited by lack of allocation concealment and blindness,and the studies were small.The evidence quality determined with the GRADE approach for 30-day mortality was poor and for other variables was very poor.As compared with ATBAD,TEVAR associated with a significantly reduced short-term mortality,M-H fixed odds ratio 0.19,95％ CI [0.09,0.39],P＜0.001.However,TEVAR could not improve the postoperative outcomes such as complications or long-term mortality,M-H random odds ratio 1.40,95％ CI[0.24,8.18].Conclusion TEVAR can be weakly recommended as an alternative for the treatment of ATBAD in selected cases and may not be used as a general option in place of surgery based on the current evidences.
