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 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.

Comparision of the long-term outcome of open surgical repair with the thoracic endovascular repair for ;the complicated type B dissection / 实用医学杂志

Objective To compare the long-term efficacy of the traditional open surgery (OSP) with the thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) in the treatment of patients with the complicated Stanford B aortic dissection. Methods The retrospective analysis of the clinical data was conducted in 118 patients (OSP 45 vs. TEVAR 73) with the complicated type B aortic dissection from January 2004 to January 2015. The long-term survival rate was compared between the two groups and the influencing factors of the postoperative survival was analyzed by using the Cox-regression analysis. Results Significant differences in age, sex and operation time were observed between the two groups (P 0.05). The refractory hypertension and preoperative aortic overall diameter > 55 mm were the risk factors for the long-term survival (P = 0.021, OR = 11.1, 95%CI:1.428 ~ 86.372; P = 0.001, OR = 4.5, 95%CI: 1.842 ~ 11.346). Conclusions Compared with OSP, no obvious advantage of TEVAR was shown in the ten-year overall cumulative survival. In view of the influence factors of refractory hypertension and the aortic diameter for the long-term survival , we should pay attention to the blood pressure control and the performance of endovascular repair technology whether pre- or post-operation.

Comparison of Costs of Endovascular Repair versus Open Surgical Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Korea

This study was designed to compare the hospital-related costs of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treatment and cost structure between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) in Korean health care system. One hundred five primary elective AAA repairs (79 OSRs and 26 EVARs) performed in the Seoul National University Hospital from 2005 to 2009 were included. Patient characteristics were similar between two groups except for older age (P = 0.004) and more frequent history of malignancy (P = 0.031) in EVAR group. Thirty-day mortality rate was similar between two groups and there was no AAA-related mortality in both groups for 5 yr after repair. The total in-hospital costs for the index admission were significantly higher in EVAR patients (mean, KRW19,857,119) than OSR patients (mean KRW12,395,507) (P < 0.001). The reimbursement was also significantly higher in EVAR patients than OSR patients (mean, KRW14,071,081 vs KRW6,238,895, P < 0.001) while patients payments was comparable between two groups. EVAR patients showed higher follow-up cost up to 2 yr due to more frequent imaging studies and reinterventions for type II endoleaks (15.4%). In the perspective of cost-effectiveness, this study suggests that the determination of which method to be used in AAA treatment be more finely trimmed and be individualized.

Midterm Outcomes of Open Surgical Repair Compared with Thoracic Endovascular Repair for Isolated Descending Thoracic Aortic Disease

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the surgical morbidity and mortality of thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) as compared with open surgical repair (OSR) for isolated descending thoracic aortic disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 1, 2006 through May 31, 2010, a total of 68 patients with isolated descending thoracic aortic disease were retrospectively reviewed for the presence of perioperative complication, 30-day mortality, and clinical success. The patients were divided into two groups (group 1, OSR, n = 40 vs. group 2, TEVAR, n = 28) and these groups were compared for major variables and late outcomes. RESULTS: The mean age was 58 years (group I = 54 vs. group II = 63 years, p = 0.011). Significant perioperative complications occurred in 12 patients: 8 (20%) in group I and 4 (13%) in group II (p = 0.3). There were five 30 day mortalities of which 4 occurred in group I and 1 in group II (p = 0.23). Clinical success (effective aortic remodeling and complete false lumen obliteration or thrombosis) was achieved in 20 patients (71%). Mean Kaplan-Meier survival rate at 1 year was similar for both groups (group 1 = 87% vs. group 2 = 80%, p = 0.65). CONCLUSION: Thoracic endovascular repair for isolated thoracic aortic disease shows comparable results to OSR. However, the potential for endoleak or rupture remains a challenge that needs to be addressed in the future. Therefore, close follow-up study is needed for the evaluation of satisfactory long-term outcomes.