Comparison of the efficacy and safety of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with open surgical repair and optimal medical therapy for acute type B aortic dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Current treatment approaches for acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD) are diversified. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) as an effective and convenient intervention has been adopted extensively. However, the superior efficacy and safety of TEVAR have not yet been well evaluated. This meta-analysis was designed to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of TEVAR with open surgical repair and optimal medical therapy for acute type B aortic dissection.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science up to April 1, 2020 was conducted for relevant studies that compared the efficacy of TEVAR and other conventional interventions in the treatment of TBAD. The primary outcomes were early mortality and midterm or long term survival. The secondary outcomes included early complications and other late outcomes. Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted the data independently. All statistical analyses were performed using the standard statistical procedures provided in Review Manager 5.2.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies including 12,789 patients were identified. 30-day/in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in TBAD patients with TEVAR than open surgical repair (OSR), with a pooled OR of 0.54 (95% CI 0.43-0.68; P < 0.00001). Compared with optimal medical therapy (OMT), TEVAR experienced lower incidence of long-term death (≥5-yr mortality), with a pooled OR of 0.46 (95% CI 0.24-0.86; P = 0.02). However, no significant difference between TEVAR and OSR or OMT in long-term survival was found. Compared with OSR, lower incidence of cardiac and pulmonary complications as well as shorter length of stay were observed in TEVAR. Compared with OMT, TEVAR showed higher rate of paraplegia or paraparesis, higher complete thrombosis of the false lumen, as well as longer length of ICU stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows that TEVAR may be favorable in reducing 30-day/in-hospital mortality (than OSR) and long-term mortality (than OMT). TEVAR experienced equal efficacy with OSR and OMT in long-term survival. TEVAR showed higher rate of paraplegia or paraparesis, higher complete thrombosis of the false lumen, as well as longer length of ICU stay than OMT; and lower incidence of cardiac and pulmonary complications as well as shorter length of stay than OSR. However, TEVAR indicated similar incidence of other complications and outcomes with OSR and OMT. Further studies especially randomized clinical trials are needed to comprehensively compare the efficacy TEVAR.