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.