Cargando…

Long-term efficacy of endovascular vs open surgical repair for complicated type-B aortic dissection: a single-center retrospective study and meta-analysis

This study aimed to evaluate the long-term survival and risk factors of traditional open surgical repair (OSR) vs thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) for complicated type-B aortic dissection (TBAD). A total of 118 inpatients (45 OSR vs 73 TEVAR) with TBAD were enrolled from January 2004 to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhu, Y., Wang, B., Meng, Q., Liu, J., Zhai, S., He, J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4932819/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27254661
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1414-431X20165194
_version_ 1782441135327674368
author Zhu, Y.
Wang, B.
Meng, Q.
Liu, J.
Zhai, S.
He, J.
author_facet Zhu, Y.
Wang, B.
Meng, Q.
Liu, J.
Zhai, S.
He, J.
author_sort Zhu, Y.
collection PubMed
description This study aimed to evaluate the long-term survival and risk factors of traditional open surgical repair (OSR) vs thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) for complicated type-B aortic dissection (TBAD). A total of 118 inpatients (45 OSR vs 73 TEVAR) with TBAD were enrolled from January 2004 to January 2015. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards analysis were performed to identify the long-term survival rate and independent predictors of survival, respectively. Meta-analysis was used to further explore the long-term efficacy of OSR and TEVAR in the eight included studies using Review Manager 5.2 software. An overall 10-year survival rate of 41.9% was found, and it was similar in the two groups (56.7% OSR vs 26.1% TEVAR; log-rank P=0.953). The risk factors of long-term survival were refractory hypertension (OR=11.1; 95%CI=1.428-86.372; P=0.021] and preoperative aortic diameter >55 mm (OR=4.5; 95%CI=1.842-11.346; P=0.001). Long-term survival rate did not differ significantly between OSR and TEVAR (hazard ratio=0.87; 95%CI=0.52-1.47; P=0.61). Compared with OSR, TEVAR did not show long-term advantages for patients with TBAD. Refractory hypertension and total aortic diameter >55 mm can be used to predict the long-term survival of TBAD in the Chinese Han population.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4932819
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49328192016-07-15 Long-term efficacy of endovascular vs open surgical repair for complicated type-B aortic dissection: a single-center retrospective study and meta-analysis Zhu, Y. Wang, B. Meng, Q. Liu, J. Zhai, S. He, J. Braz J Med Biol Res Clinical Investigation This study aimed to evaluate the long-term survival and risk factors of traditional open surgical repair (OSR) vs thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) for complicated type-B aortic dissection (TBAD). A total of 118 inpatients (45 OSR vs 73 TEVAR) with TBAD were enrolled from January 2004 to January 2015. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards analysis were performed to identify the long-term survival rate and independent predictors of survival, respectively. Meta-analysis was used to further explore the long-term efficacy of OSR and TEVAR in the eight included studies using Review Manager 5.2 software. An overall 10-year survival rate of 41.9% was found, and it was similar in the two groups (56.7% OSR vs 26.1% TEVAR; log-rank P=0.953). The risk factors of long-term survival were refractory hypertension (OR=11.1; 95%CI=1.428-86.372; P=0.021] and preoperative aortic diameter >55 mm (OR=4.5; 95%CI=1.842-11.346; P=0.001). Long-term survival rate did not differ significantly between OSR and TEVAR (hazard ratio=0.87; 95%CI=0.52-1.47; P=0.61). Compared with OSR, TEVAR did not show long-term advantages for patients with TBAD. Refractory hypertension and total aortic diameter >55 mm can be used to predict the long-term survival of TBAD in the Chinese Han population. Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica 2016-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC4932819/ /pubmed/27254661 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1414-431X20165194 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Investigation
Zhu, Y.
Wang, B.
Meng, Q.
Liu, J.
Zhai, S.
He, J.
Long-term efficacy of endovascular vs open surgical repair for complicated type-B aortic dissection: a single-center retrospective study and meta-analysis
title Long-term efficacy of endovascular vs open surgical repair for complicated type-B aortic dissection: a single-center retrospective study and meta-analysis
title_full Long-term efficacy of endovascular vs open surgical repair for complicated type-B aortic dissection: a single-center retrospective study and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Long-term efficacy of endovascular vs open surgical repair for complicated type-B aortic dissection: a single-center retrospective study and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Long-term efficacy of endovascular vs open surgical repair for complicated type-B aortic dissection: a single-center retrospective study and meta-analysis
title_short Long-term efficacy of endovascular vs open surgical repair for complicated type-B aortic dissection: a single-center retrospective study and meta-analysis
title_sort long-term efficacy of endovascular vs open surgical repair for complicated type-b aortic dissection: a single-center retrospective study and meta-analysis
topic Clinical Investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4932819/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27254661
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1414-431X20165194
work_keys_str_mv AT zhuy longtermefficacyofendovascularvsopensurgicalrepairforcomplicatedtypebaorticdissectionasinglecenterretrospectivestudyandmetaanalysis
AT wangb longtermefficacyofendovascularvsopensurgicalrepairforcomplicatedtypebaorticdissectionasinglecenterretrospectivestudyandmetaanalysis
AT mengq longtermefficacyofendovascularvsopensurgicalrepairforcomplicatedtypebaorticdissectionasinglecenterretrospectivestudyandmetaanalysis
AT liuj longtermefficacyofendovascularvsopensurgicalrepairforcomplicatedtypebaorticdissectionasinglecenterretrospectivestudyandmetaanalysis
AT zhais longtermefficacyofendovascularvsopensurgicalrepairforcomplicatedtypebaorticdissectionasinglecenterretrospectivestudyandmetaanalysis
AT hej longtermefficacyofendovascularvsopensurgicalrepairforcomplicatedtypebaorticdissectionasinglecenterretrospectivestudyandmetaanalysis