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

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 re...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jianping Liu, Xiaohong Chen, Juan Xia, Long Tang, Yongheng Zhang, Lin Cao, Yong Zheng
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2025-02-01
Series:BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-025-04478-1
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1823863286241689600
author Jianping Liu
Xiaohong Chen
Juan Xia
Long Tang
Yongheng Zhang
Lin Cao
Yong Zheng
author_facet Jianping Liu
Xiaohong Chen
Juan Xia
Long Tang
Yongheng Zhang
Lin Cao
Yong Zheng
author_sort Jianping Liu
collection DOAJ
description 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.
format Article
id doaj-art-8bafdd965ac54dae8aafd3834f79b16e
institution Kabale University
issn 1471-2261
language English
publishDate 2025-02-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
spelling doaj-art-8bafdd965ac54dae8aafd3834f79b16e2025-02-09T12:11:08ZengBMCBMC Cardiovascular Disorders1471-22612025-02-0125111610.1186/s12872-025-04478-1Comparisons 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-analysisJianping Liu0Xiaohong Chen1Juan Xia2Long Tang3Yongheng Zhang4Lin Cao5Yong Zheng6Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Suining Central HospitalDepartment of Anesthesiology, Suining Central HospitalDepartment of Hospital-Acquired Infection Control, Suining Central HospitalDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Suining Central HospitalDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Suining Central HospitalDepartment of Intensive Care Unit, Suining Central HospitalDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Suining Central HospitalAbstract 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.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-025-04478-1Open surgical repairThoracic endovascular aortic repairOptimal medical therapyType B aortic dissectionSystematic reviewNetwork meta-analysis
spellingShingle Jianping Liu
Xiaohong Chen
Juan Xia
Long Tang
Yongheng Zhang
Lin Cao
Yong Zheng
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
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
Open surgical repair
Thoracic endovascular aortic repair
Optimal medical therapy
Type B aortic dissection
Systematic review
Network meta-analysis
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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Open surgical repair
Thoracic endovascular aortic repair
Optimal medical therapy
Type B aortic dissection
Systematic review
Network meta-analysis
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-025-04478-1
work_keys_str_mv AT jianpingliu comparisonsofopensurgicalrepairthoracicendovascularaorticrepairandoptimalmedicaltherapyforacuteandsubacutetypebaorticdissectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT xiaohongchen comparisonsofopensurgicalrepairthoracicendovascularaorticrepairandoptimalmedicaltherapyforacuteandsubacutetypebaorticdissectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT juanxia comparisonsofopensurgicalrepairthoracicendovascularaorticrepairandoptimalmedicaltherapyforacuteandsubacutetypebaorticdissectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT longtang comparisonsofopensurgicalrepairthoracicendovascularaorticrepairandoptimalmedicaltherapyforacuteandsubacutetypebaorticdissectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yonghengzhang comparisonsofopensurgicalrepairthoracicendovascularaorticrepairandoptimalmedicaltherapyforacuteandsubacutetypebaorticdissectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lincao comparisonsofopensurgicalrepairthoracicendovascularaorticrepairandoptimalmedicaltherapyforacuteandsubacutetypebaorticdissectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yongzheng comparisonsofopensurgicalrepairthoracicendovascularaorticrepairandoptimalmedicaltherapyforacuteandsubacutetypebaorticdissectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis