Total amount: € 0,00
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,632
Online ISSN 1827-191X
Yang J., Shi Y., Jiang J.
Department of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China
AIM: To conduct a meta-analysis of all studies comparing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and best medical therapy (BMT) for treating uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection (TBAD).
METHODS: PubMed/Medline and Web of Knowledge were searched till September 2014 for relevant studies published in English. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and its corresponding 95% CI were analyzed with Cochrane Review Manager (Revman 5.3).
RESULTS: Our analysis showed that compared with BMT, TEVAR did not significantly affect 30-day (hospital) mortality. A significantly lower 1-year and 2- or 3 year survival rates was observed with TEVAR vs BMT. Interestingly, a trend just short of statistical significance towards higher 4- or 5-year survival was found with TEVAR treatment ( P = 0.08). No significant differences were found in false lumen (FL) thrombosis formation with TEVAR vs BMT treatment. However, a trend toward less incomplete or no FL thrombosis was noted with TEVAR. No significantly impact on the risk of later re-intervention was found with TEVAR vs BMT.
CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR did not provide obvious early survival advantage for uncomplicated TBAD over BMT, especially in the patients using TEVAR alone. It may remain a treatment option in uncomplicated TBAD patients with high risks for later complications. More randomized, prospective, long-term studies are needed to further clarify whether TEVAR could be a better first-line treatment strategy vs BMT for uncomplicated TBAD.