Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Prescot Road, Liverpool, UK; Liverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital, Liverpool, UK; Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Prescot Road, Liverpool, UK.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2022 May;63(5):696-706. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2021.12.042. Epub 2022 Feb 25.
Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with adverse morphology of the aneurysm neck are "complex". Techniques employed to repair complex aneurysms include open surgical repair (OSR) and a number of on label endovascular techniques such as fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with adjuncts (including chimneys and endo-anchors), as well as off label use of standard EVAR. The aim was to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published comparative outcomes.
An electronic search was performed in Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). These databases were interrogated using the PubMed interface and the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search (HDAS) interface developed by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence.
Online databases were interrogated up to April 2020. Studies were included if they compared outcomes between at least two methods of repair for complex aneurysms (those with at least one adverse neck feature: absent/short neck, conicality, angulation, calcification, large diameter, and thrombus). The primary outcome measure was peri-operative death. Pre-registration was done in PROSPERO (CRD42020177482).
The search identified 24 observational studies and 7854 patients who underwent OSR, FEVAR, off label EVAR, or chimney EVAR. No comparative studies included EVAR with endo-anchors. NMA was performed on 23 studies that reported outcomes of aneurysms with short/absent infrarenal neck. Compared with OSR, off label EVAR (relative risk [RR] 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01 - 0.41) and FEVAR (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.32-0.94) were associated with lower peri-operative mortality. This difference was not seen at the midterm follow up (30 months). Compared with OSR, FEVAR was associated with a lower peri-operative myocardial infarction (MI) rate (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 - 0.62) but a higher midterm re-intervention rate (hazard ratio 1.65, 95% CI 1.04 - 2.66). All studies had a "moderate" or "high" risk of bias. Confidence in the network findings (GRADE) was generally "low".
This NMA demonstrated a peri-operative survival benefit for off label EVAR and FEVAR compared with OSR, potentially due to reduced risk of MI. FEVAR carries a greater midterm re-intervention risk than OSR, with potential implications for cost effectiveness. There is paucity of comparative data for cases with adverse neck features other than short length.
腹主动脉瘤(AAA)瘤颈形态不良者为“复杂”。修复复杂动脉瘤的技术包括开放手术修复(OSR)和一些标签内的血管内技术,如开窗血管内修复(FEVAR)和带附加物的血管内修复(EVAR)(包括烟囱和内锚),以及标准 EVAR 的标签外使用。目的是对已发表的比较结果进行网络荟萃分析(NMA)。
在 Embase、MEDLINE 和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)中进行了电子检索。使用 PubMed 界面和国家卫生和保健卓越中心开发的医疗保健数据库高级搜索(HDAS)界面在这些数据库中进行了查询。
在线数据库检索至 2020 年 4 月。如果研究比较了至少两种复杂动脉瘤修复方法的结果(至少有一个不良颈部特征:无/短颈、锥形、成角、钙化、大直径和血栓),则将其纳入研究。主要观察指标为围手术期死亡。已在 PROSPERO(CRD42020177482)中进行了预注册。
检索确定了 24 项观察性研究和 7854 名接受 OSR、FEVAR、标签外 EVAR 或烟囱 EVAR 治疗的患者。没有比较研究包括带内锚的 EVAR。对 23 项报告短/无肾下颈动脉瘤结果的研究进行了 NMA。与 OSR 相比,标签外 EVAR(RR 0.10,95%CI 0.01-0.41)和 FEVAR(RR 0.62,95%CI 0.32-0.94)与较低的围手术期死亡率相关。在中期随访(30 个月)时并未发现这种差异。与 OSR 相比,FEVAR 与较低的围手术期心肌梗死(MI)发生率(RR 0.37,95%CI 0.16-0.62)相关,但中期再干预率较高(HR 1.65,95%CI 1.04-2.66)。所有研究的偏倚风险均为“中度”或“高度”。对网络结果的置信度(GRADE)通常为“低”。
这项 NMA 表明,与 OSR 相比,标签外 EVAR 和 FEVAR 具有围手术期生存优势,这可能是由于 MI 风险降低所致。FEVAR 的中期再干预风险高于 OSR,这可能对成本效益产生影响。对于除短颈长度外具有不良颈部特征的病例,比较数据很少。