OBJECTIVE: To determine outcomes of postdissection thoracoabdominal aneurysms by either open or endovascular repair with fenestrated or branched endografts. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted for open or endovascular repair of postdissection thoracoabdominal aneurysms, between January 2009 and February 2020. A meta-analysis was performed for postoperative complications and both early and late mortality and reinterventions. RESULTS: Fifteen noncomparative studies (eight endovascular repair and seven open repair) were suitable for meta-analysis. Overall, 1337 patients were included, 1068 in the open repair group (73% male; mean age 58 years) and 269 in the endovascular repair group (79% male; mean age 65 years). The 30-day mortality was 6% for open repair vs 3% for endovascular repair (P = .35), whereas the 30-day reintervention rate was 3% for open repair vs 1% for endovascular repair (P = .66). The only significant difference was reported for 30-day respiratory complication rate (30% open repair vs 2% endovascular repair; P < .01). The incidence of spinal cord ischemia was 9% for open repair vs 8% for endovascular repair (P = .95). The mean follow-up was 44 months: 48 months (range, 10-72 months) after open repair and 17 months (range, 12-25 months) after endovascular repair (P < .01). Late aortic reinterventions were more frequent after endovascular repair (11% vs 32%; P < .001). The late overall mortality rate was 19% for open repair vs 7% for endovascular repair (P = .08), whereas aortic-related mortality was 7% for open repair vs 3% for endovascular repair (P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of comparative studies, this meta-analysis showed that endovascular repair seems to be a viable alternative for patients unfit for open repair.
OBJECTIVE: To determine outcomes of postdissection thoracoabdominal aneurysms by either open or endovascular repair with fenestrated or branched endografts. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted for open or endovascular repair of postdissection thoracoabdominal aneurysms, between January 2009 and February 2020. A meta-analysis was performed for postoperative complications and both early and late mortality and reinterventions. RESULTS: Fifteen noncomparative studies (eight endovascular repair and seven open repair) were suitable for meta-analysis. Overall, 1337 patients were included, 1068 in the open repair group (73% male; mean age 58 years) and 269 in the endovascular repair group (79% male; mean age 65 years). The 30-day mortality was 6% for open repair vs 3% for endovascular repair (P = .35), whereas the 30-day reintervention rate was 3% for open repair vs 1% for endovascular repair (P = .66). The only significant difference was reported for 30-day respiratory complication rate (30% open repair vs 2% endovascular repair; P < .01). The incidence of spinal cord ischemia was 9% for open repair vs 8% for endovascular repair (P = .95). The mean follow-up was 44 months: 48 months (range, 10-72 months) after open repair and 17 months (range, 12-25 months) after endovascular repair (P < .01). Late aortic reinterventions were more frequent after endovascular repair (11% vs 32%; P < .001). The late overall mortality rate was 19% for open repair vs 7% for endovascular repair (P = .08), whereas aortic-related mortality was 7% for open repair vs 3% for endovascular repair (P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of comparative studies, this meta-analysis showed that endovascular repair seems to be a viable alternative for patients unfit for open repair.