Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Endovascular versus open surgical repair for complicated chronic type B aortic dissection

This is not the most recent version

view the current version 14 December 2021

References

Additional references

Atkins 2004

Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck‐Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328(7454):1490‐4.

Carson 1990

Carson MW, Roach MR. The strength of the aortic media and its role in the propagation of aortic dissection. Journal of Biomechanics 1990;23(6):579‐88.

Criado 2011

Criado FJ. Aortic dissection: a 250‐year perspective. Texas Heart Institute Journal 2011;38(6):694‐700.

Daily 1970

Daily P, Trueblood HW, Stinson EB, Wuerflein RD, Shumway NE. Management of acute aortic dissections. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 1970;10(3):237‐47.

Dake 2013

Dake MD, Thompson M, van Sambeek M, Vermassen F, Morales JP. DISSECT: a new mnemonic‐based approach to the categorization of aortic dissection. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2013;46(2):175‐90.

DeBakey 1966

DeBakey ME, Beall AC, Cooley DA, Crawford ES, Morris GC, Garrett HE, et al. Dissecting aneurysms of the aorta. Surgical Clinics of North America 1966;46:1045‐55.

Diehm 2013

Diehm N, Vermassen F, van Sambeek MR. Standardized definitions and clinical endpoints in trials investigating endovascular repair of aortic dissections. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2013;46(6):645‐50.

Estrera 2014

Estrera AL, Sandhu H, Afifi RO, Azizzadeh A, Charlton‐Ouw K, Miller CC, et al. Open repair of chronic complicated type B aortic dissection using the open distal technique. Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery 2014;3(4):375‐84.

Fattori 2008

Fattori R, Tsai TT, Myrmel T, Evangelista A, Cooper JV, Trimarchi S, et al. Complicated Acute Type B Dissection: is surgery still the best option? A report from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection. Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions 2008;1(4):395‐402.

Fattori 2013

Fattori R, Cao P, De Rango P, Czerny M, Evangelista A, Nienaber C, et al. Interdisciplinary expert consensus document on management of type B aortic dissection. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2013;61(16):1661‐78.

Gasser 2006

Gasser TC, Holzapfel GA. Modeling the propagation of arterial dissection. European Journal of Mechanics ‐ A/Solids 2006;25(4):617‐33.

GRADEpro GDT [Computer program]

McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime). GRADEpro GDT. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2015.

Guyatt 2008

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck‐Ytter Y, Alonso‐Coel P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7650):924‐6.

Hagan 2000

Hagan PG, Nienaber CA, Isselbacher EM, Bruckman D, Karavite DJ, Russman PL, et al. The International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD). JAMA 2000;283(7):897‐903.

Higgins 2011

Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.

Hughes 2013

Hughes GC, Andersen N, McCann RL. Management of acute type B aortic dissection. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2013;145(3):202‐7.

Lansman 2002

Lansman SL, Hagl C, Fink D, Galla JD, Spielvogel D, Ergin MA, et al. Acute type B aortic dissection: surgical therapy. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2002;74(5):1833‐5.

Larson 1984

Larson EW, Edwards WD. Risk factors for aortic dissection: a necropsy study of 161 cases. American Journal of Cardiology 1984;53(6):849‐55.

Parmar 1998

Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta‐analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 1998;17(24):2815‐34.

Parsa 2010

Parsa CJ, Schroder JN, Daneshmand MA, McCann RL, Hughes GC. Mid term results for endovascular repair of complicated acute and chronic type B aortic dissection. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2010;89(1):97‐102.

RevMan 2014 [Computer program]

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

Schünemann 2006

Schünemann HJ, Jaeschke R, Cook DJ, Bria WF, El‐Solh AA, Ernst A, et al. An official ATS statement: grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2006;174(5):605‐14.

Takkenberg 2003

Takkenberg JJ, Eijkemans MJ, van Herwerden LA, Steyerberg EW, Lane MM, Elkins RC, et al. Prognosis after aortic root replacement with cryopreserved allografts in adults. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2003;75(5):1482‐9.

Thrumurthy 2011

Thrumurthy SG, Karthikesalingam A, Patterson BO, Holt PJ, Hinchliffe RJ, Loftus IM, et al. A systematic review of mid‐term outcomes of thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) of chronic type B aortic dissection. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2011;42(5):632‐47.

Tian 2014

Tian DH, De Silva RP, Wang T, Yan TD. Open surgical repair for chronic type B aortic dissection: a systematic review. Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery 2014;3(4):340‐50.

Tierney 2007

Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time‐to‐event data into meta‐analysis. Trials 2007;8(1):16.

Wong 2008

Wong DR, Lemaire SA, Coselli JS. Managing dissections of the thoracic aorta. American Surgeon 2008;74(6):364‐80.
Table 1. Example of 'Summary of findings' table: endovascular versus open surgical repair for the treatment of complicated chronic type B aortic dissection

Endovascular repair compared with open surgical repair for complicated chronic type B aortic dissection

Patient or population: people with chronic complicated type B aortic dissection

Settings: hospital

Intervention: endovascular repair

Comparison: open surgical repair

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Open surgical repair

Endovascular repair

Mortality: dissection‐related

(30‐day)

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

Neurological sequelae

(stroke, spinal cord ischaemia/paresis‐paralysis, vertebral insufficiency)

(1 year)

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

Morphological outcomes

(false lumen thrombosis, progression of dissection, aortic diameters)

(1 year)

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

Acute renal failure

(1 year)

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

Ischaemic symptoms

(visceral ischaemia, limb ischaemia)

(1 year)

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

Reintervention

(5 years)

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

Health‐related quality of life

(measured using validated quality of life scales as used by the included trials)

(1 year)

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Example of 'Summary of findings' table: endovascular versus open surgical repair for the treatment of complicated chronic type B aortic dissection
Navigate to table in Protocol