Department of Surgery and Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Surgery and Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Vasc Surg. 2018 Sep;68(3):900-915. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.05.018. Epub 2018 Jun 28.
Outcomes after repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) have improved in the last decade. It is unknown whether this has resulted in a reduction of postoperative bowel ischemia (BI). The primary objective was to determine BI prevalence after RAAA repair. Secondary objectives were to determine its major sequelae and differences between open repair (OR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).
This systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42017055920) followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies published from 2005 until 2018. The methodologic quality of observational studies was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. The quality of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. BI prevalence and rates of BI as cause of death, reoperation, and bowel resection were estimated with meta-analyses with a random-effects model. Differences between OR and EVAR were estimated with pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Changes over time were assessed with Spearman rank test (ρ). Publication bias was assessed with a funnel plot analysis.
A total of 101 studies with 52,670 patients were included; 72 studies were retrospective cohort studies, 14 studies were prospective cohort studies, 12 studies were retrospective administrative database studies, and 3 studies were RCTs. The overall methodologic quality of the RCTs was high, but that of observational studies was low. The pooled prevalence of BI ranged from of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.07-0.09) in database studies to 0.10 (95% CI, 0.08-0.12) in cohort studies. The risk of BI was higher after OR than after EVAR (risk ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.25-2.57). The pooled rate of BI as cause of death was 0.04 (95% CI, 0.03-0.05), and that of BI as cause of reoperation and bowel resection ranged between 0.05 and 0.07. BI prevalence did not change over time (ρ, -0.01; P = .93). The funnel plot analysis was highly suggestive of publication bias.
The prevalence of clinically relevant BI after RAAA repair is approximately 10%. Approximately 5% of patients undergoing RAAA repair suffer from severe consequences of BI. BI is less prevalent after EVAR than after OR.
在过去的十年中,腹主动脉瘤破裂(RAAA)修复术后的结果得到了改善。尚不清楚这是否导致术后肠缺血(BI)的减少。主要目的是确定 RAAA 修复后 BI 的发生率。次要目标是确定其主要后果以及开放修复(OR)和血管内动脉瘤修复(EVAR)之间的差异。
本系统评价(PROSPERO CRD42017055920)遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)和观察性研究荟萃分析中的流行病学(MOOSE)指南。从 2005 年到 2018 年,在 MEDLINE 和 Embase 上搜索已发表的研究。使用非随机研究方法学指数(MINORS)工具评估观察性研究的方法学质量。使用 Cochrane 协作风险偏倚评估工具评估随机对照试验(RCT)的质量。使用随机效应模型对 BI 发生率和 BI 作为死亡、再次手术和肠切除术的原因的发生率进行荟萃分析。使用汇总风险比(RR)和 95%置信区间(CI)评估 OR 和 EVAR 之间的差异。使用 Spearman 秩检验(ρ)评估随时间的变化。使用漏斗图分析评估发表偏倚。
共纳入 101 项研究,涉及 52670 名患者;72 项研究为回顾性队列研究,14 项研究为前瞻性队列研究,12 项研究为回顾性行政数据库研究,3 项研究为 RCT。RCT 的总体方法学质量较高,但观察性研究的质量较低。BI 的总发生率范围为数据库研究的 0.08(95%CI,0.07-0.09)至队列研究的 0.10(95%CI,0.08-0.12)。OR 后 BI 的风险高于 EVAR 后(RR,1.79;95%CI,1.25-2.57)。BI 作为死亡原因的发生率为 0.04(95%CI,0.03-0.05),BI 作为再次手术和肠切除术原因的发生率在 0.05 至 0.07 之间。BI 发生率随时间无变化(ρ,-0.01;P=0.93)。漏斗图分析高度提示存在发表偏倚。
RAAA 修复术后临床相关 BI 的发生率约为 10%。约有 5%接受 RAAA 修复的患者患有 BI 的严重后果。EVAR 后 BI 的发生率低于 OR。