Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, The Royal Oldham Hospital, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Northern Care Alliance NHS Group, Manchester, UK; Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Birmingham Aortic Team, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK; Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2021 Feb;61(2):228-237. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2020.10.010. Epub 2020 Dec 4.
The aim of this review was to investigate comparative outcomes of fenestrated or branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) with open repair for juxta/para/suprarenal or thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms.
Electronic bibliographic sources (MEDLINE and Embase) were interrogated using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface. Eligible studies compared F/BEVAR with open repair for complex aortic aneurysms using propensity score or Cox regression modelling/multivariable logistic regression analysis. Pooled estimates of peri-operative outcomes were calculated using the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The result of time to event analysis was reported as summary hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI. Random effects models and the inverse variance method were applied. The quality of evidence was graded using the system developed by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group.
Eleven studies published between 2014 and 2019 were selected for inclusion in qualitative and quantitative synthesis reporting a total of at least 7 061 patients. The odds of peri-operative mortality after F/BEVAR were lower, although not significantly, than after open repair (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.28-1.12), whereas the hazard of overall mortality during follow up was higher following F/BEVAR, but, again, without reaching statistical significance (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.93-1.67). The hazard of re-intervention was significantly higher after endovascular therapy (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.39-3.18). The certainty for the body of evidence for peri-operative and overall mortality during follow up was judged to be very low and moderate, respectively, and for re-intervention it was judged to be high.
The evidence is uncertain about the effect of F/BEVAR on peri-operative mortality when compared with open repair. There is probably no difference in overall survival, but F/BEVAR results in an increased re-intervention hazard. There is a need for high level evidence to inform decision making and vascular/aortic service provision.
本综述旨在探讨腔内修复(fenestrated or branched endovascular aneurysm repair,F/BEVAR)与开放修复治疗肾周/肾旁/肾上或胸腹主动脉瘤的对比结局。
使用 Healthcare Databases Advanced Search 界面检索电子文献数据库(MEDLINE 和 Embase)。合格研究使用倾向评分或 Cox 回归建模/多变量逻辑回归分析比较 F/BEVAR 与开放修复治疗复杂主动脉瘤的疗效。使用比值比(odds ratio,OR)和 95%置信区间(confidence interval,CI)计算围手术期结局的汇总估计值。时间事件分析的结果以汇总危险比(hazard ratio,HR)和 95%CI 报告。应用随机效应模型和逆方差法。使用推荐评估、制定与评价(Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation,GRADE)工作组开发的系统对证据质量进行分级。
纳入定性和定量综合报告的 11 项研究发表于 2014 年至 2019 年之间,共纳入至少 7061 例患者。F/BEVAR 后的围手术期死亡率虽然较低,但无统计学意义(OR 0.56,95%CI 0.28-1.12),而 F/BEVAR 后随访期间的总死亡率较高,但同样无统计学意义(HR 1.25,95%CI 0.93-1.67)。腔内治疗后的再干预风险明显较高(HR 2.11,95%CI 1.39-3.18)。证据体对围手术期和随访期间总死亡率的确定性被判断为非常低和中度,而对再干预的确定性被判断为高。
F/BEVAR 与开放修复相比,对围手术期死亡率的影响证据不确定。在总生存率方面可能没有差异,但 F/BEVAR 导致再干预风险增加。需要高水平的证据来为决策制定和血管/主动脉服务提供依据。