Comparisons of open surgical repair, thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and optimal medical therapy for acute and subacute type B aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS BMC Cardiovascular Disorders Pub Date : 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1186/s12872-025-04478-1
Jianping Liu, Xiaohong Chen, Juan Xia, Long Tang, Yongheng Zhang, Lin Cao, Yong Zheng
{"title":"Comparisons of open surgical repair, thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and optimal medical therapy for acute and subacute type B aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Jianping Liu, Xiaohong Chen, Juan Xia, Long Tang, Yongheng Zhang, Lin Cao, Yong Zheng","doi":"10.1186/s12872-025-04478-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Various treatments have been employed in managing type B aortic dissection (TBAD), encompassing open surgical repair (OSR), thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), and optimal medical therapy (OMT). Nonetheless, the determination of the most efficacious treatment protocol remains a subject of debate. We aim to compare the treatments in patients with acute and subacute TBAD using a meta-analytic approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted across databases including PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies published from their inception up to September 2024. Studies comparing OSR, TEVAR, and OMT for TBAD through controlled or direct comparative designs were incorporated. Pairwise comparison meta-analyses were performed employing odds ratios (OR) alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to quantify intervention effects by using the random-effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-one studies involving 34,681 patients with TBAD were included in the final meta-analysis. We noted OSR were associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality (OR: 2.41; 95%CI: 1.67-3.49; P < 0.001), paraplegia (OR: 3.60; 95%CI: 2.20-5.89; P < 0.001), limb ischemia (OR: 7.80; 95%CI: 2.39-25.49; P = 0.001) and bleeding (OR: 9.54; 95%CI: 6.57-13.85; P < 0.001) as compared with OMT. Moreover, OSR versus TEVAR showed an increased risk of in-hospital mortality (OR: 2.67; 95%CI: 1.92-3.72; P < 0.001), acute renal failure (OR: 1.98; 95%CI: 1.61-2.42; P < 0.001), myocardial infaraction (OR: 2.76; 95%CI: 1.64-4.65; P < 0.001), respiratory failure (OR: 2.19; 95%CI: 1.73-2.76; P < 0.001), or bleeding (OR: 1.88; 95%CI: 1.33-2.67; P < 0.001), and lower risk of reintervention (OR: 0.30; 95%CI: 0.10-0.89; P = 0.030). Finally, TEVAR was associated with an increased risk of stroke (OR: 1.77; 95%CI: 1.41-2.21; P < 0.001), limb ischemia (OR: 13.00; 95%CI: 4.33-39.06; P < 0.001), and bleeding (OR: 3.65; 95%CI: 2.40-5.55; P < 0.001) as compared with OMT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study systematically compared various treatments and showed their safety and efficacy for acute and subacute TBAD. The results require further large-scale randomized controlled trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":9195,"journal":{"name":"BMC Cardiovascular Disorders","volume":"25 1","pages":"86"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11806765/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Cardiovascular Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-025-04478-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Various treatments have been employed in managing type B aortic dissection (TBAD), encompassing open surgical repair (OSR), thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), and optimal medical therapy (OMT). Nonetheless, the determination of the most efficacious treatment protocol remains a subject of debate. We aim to compare the treatments in patients with acute and subacute TBAD using a meta-analytic approach.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted across databases including PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies published from their inception up to September 2024. Studies comparing OSR, TEVAR, and OMT for TBAD through controlled or direct comparative designs were incorporated. Pairwise comparison meta-analyses were performed employing odds ratios (OR) alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to quantify intervention effects by using the random-effects model.

Results: Thirty-one studies involving 34,681 patients with TBAD were included in the final meta-analysis. We noted OSR were associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality (OR: 2.41; 95%CI: 1.67-3.49; P < 0.001), paraplegia (OR: 3.60; 95%CI: 2.20-5.89; P < 0.001), limb ischemia (OR: 7.80; 95%CI: 2.39-25.49; P = 0.001) and bleeding (OR: 9.54; 95%CI: 6.57-13.85; P < 0.001) as compared with OMT. Moreover, OSR versus TEVAR showed an increased risk of in-hospital mortality (OR: 2.67; 95%CI: 1.92-3.72; P < 0.001), acute renal failure (OR: 1.98; 95%CI: 1.61-2.42; P < 0.001), myocardial infaraction (OR: 2.76; 95%CI: 1.64-4.65; P < 0.001), respiratory failure (OR: 2.19; 95%CI: 1.73-2.76; P < 0.001), or bleeding (OR: 1.88; 95%CI: 1.33-2.67; P < 0.001), and lower risk of reintervention (OR: 0.30; 95%CI: 0.10-0.89; P = 0.030). Finally, TEVAR was associated with an increased risk of stroke (OR: 1.77; 95%CI: 1.41-2.21; P < 0.001), limb ischemia (OR: 13.00; 95%CI: 4.33-39.06; P < 0.001), and bleeding (OR: 3.65; 95%CI: 2.40-5.55; P < 0.001) as compared with OMT.

Conclusions: This study systematically compared various treatments and showed their safety and efficacy for acute and subacute TBAD. The results require further large-scale randomized controlled trials.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较急性和亚急性B型主动脉夹层的开放性手术修复、胸腔血管内主动脉修复和最佳药物治疗:一项系统综述和荟萃分析
背景:治疗B型主动脉夹层(TBAD)采用了多种治疗方法,包括开放式手术修复(OSR)、胸腔血管内主动脉修复(TEVAR)和最佳药物治疗(OMT)。尽管如此,确定最有效的治疗方案仍然是一个有争议的话题。我们的目的是用荟萃分析方法比较急性和亚急性TBAD患者的治疗方法。方法:系统检索PubMed、EmBase和Cochrane Library等数据库,检索自成立至2024年9月发表的相关研究。通过对照或直接比较设计比较OSR、TEVAR和OMT治疗TBAD的研究。两两比较荟萃分析采用优势比(OR)和95%置信区间(ci),采用随机效应模型量化干预效果。结果:31项研究包括34,681例TBAD患者被纳入最终的荟萃分析。我们注意到OSR与院内死亡风险增加相关(OR: 2.41;95%置信区间:1.67—-3.49;结论:本研究系统比较了各种治疗方法对急性和亚急性TBAD的安全性和有效性。结果需要进一步的大规模随机对照试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
480
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BMC Cardiovascular Disorders is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of disorders of the heart and circulatory system, as well as related molecular and cell biology, genetics, pathophysiology, epidemiology, and controlled trials.
期刊最新文献
Effects of the Buteyko breathing technique on sleep quality, fatigue, and oxygen saturation in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Racial and sex differences in acute pericarditis among emergency department chest pain patients: a retrospective cohort study. Efficacy and safety of dual antiplatelet therapy de-escalation in East Asian individuals following percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Advanced lung cancer inflammation index and mortality risk in patients with cardiovascular disease. Intensive care experiences of patients with implanted left ventricular assist devices: a qualitative study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1