A systematic review and meta-analysis of early outcomes after endovascular versus open repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the early results of endovascular vs open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair. Methods: MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies from January 2006 to March 2018 that compared endovascular vs open repair of TAAA using branched or fenestrated endografts. Data were subjected to a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The outcomes of interest included early mortality, spinal cord injury, renal failure requiring dialysis, stroke, and hospital length of stay. Results: Eight comparative studies met inclusion criteria. There were two retrospective propensity-matched studies, two unadjusted single-center retrospective studies, and four unadjusted national population-based studies. Mortality in the matched studies was equivalent in both groups. Pooled analysis of all unmatched observational studies revealed a survival benefit for endovascular over open repair (relative risk [RR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [ CI], 0.45-0.87); P < .01, I-2 = 47%). Endovascular repair was also associated with lower incidence of spinal cord injury (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.01; P =.05; I-2 = 28%). For unmatched studies, pooled RR of renal failure requiring dialysis significantly favored endovascular repair (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85; P = .01; I-2 = 0%), although in the adjusted cohort, risk of dialysis was not different (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.06-15.65; P = 1.00). Postoperative stroke rate was reported in three unadjusted studies and was not different between groups (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.28-2.40; P =.71; I-2 = 77%). Hospital length of stay was reported in four studies and was shorter in the endovascular group (mean difference, -4.4 days; 95% CI, -6.6 to -1.7; P < .01; I-2 = 73%). Conclusions: There are few reports comparing endovascular vs open repair of TAAAs. Short-term outcomes may be improved in patients undergoing endovascular treatment of TAAA on the basis of a limited number of studies with high risk of bias. These findings highlight the need for larger comparative studies with standardization of reporting.