Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for thoracic aortic arch aneurysms

Esta versión no es la más reciente

ver la versión actual 04 junio 2021

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012923Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 19 enero 2018see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Protocol
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Vascular

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Ala Elhelali

    Correspondencia a: Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Galway‐Mayo Institute of Technology, Galway, Ireland

    [email protected]

  • Niamh Hynes

    Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, The Galway Clinic, Galway, Ireland

  • Declan Devane

    School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

  • Sherif Sultan

    Vascular Surgery, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland

  • Edel P Kavanagh

    Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, The Galway Clinic, Galway, Ireland

  • Liam Morris

    Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Galway‐Mayo Institute of Technology, Galway, Ireland

  • Dave Veerasingam

    Cardiothoracic Surgery, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland

  • Fionnuala Jordan

    School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

Contributions of authors

AE: designing and drafting protocol, acquiring trial reports, trial selection, data extraction and entry, assessment of risk of bias, data analysis, data interpretation, review drafting and future review updates
NH: designing and drafting protocol, acquiring trial reports, data interpretation, study selection, review drafting and future review updates
SS: designing and drafting protocol, data interpretation, review drafting and future review updates
DD: designing and drafting protocol, review methodology, data interpretation, review drafting and future review updates
SS: designing and drafting protocol, data interpretation, review drafting and future review updates
EPK: data extraction and entry, acquiring trial reports, data interpretation, study selection, assessment of risk of bias, review drafting and future review updates
LM: designing and drafting protocol, data interpretation, review drafting and future review updates
DV: designing and drafting protocol, data interpretation, review drafting and future review updates
FJ: designing and drafting protocol, assessment of risk of bias, review drafting and future review updates

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Directorates, The Scottish Government, UK.

    The Cochrane Vascular Group editorial base is supported by the Chief Scientist Office.

Declarations of interest

AE: none known
NH: has received payment as a member of the Peripheral Advisory Board and for consultation on Regulatory Documents from Lake Region Medical; for medical device design at Boston Scientific (Enterprise Ireland Bioinnovate Fellow) and for her role as Principal Investigator in the INSIGHT Post Market Surveillance Trail of the Incraft AAA device (Cordis/Cardinal Health). Her institution has received payment for lectures and presentations from Gore Medical. She has no competing interests, relationships, conditions or circumstances which will conflict with this review.
DD: none known
SS: has received payment for training physicians on endovascular aortic repair from Gore Medical and is the Prinicpal Invesigator in the INSIGHT post Market Surveillance trail of the Incraft abdominal aortic endograft (Cordis/Cardinal health). He has no conflict of interest which will effect this review.
EPK: none known
ML: none known
DV: none known
FJ: none known

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Cochrane Vascular for the guidance and support they provided during the preparation of this protocol.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2021 Jun 04

Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for thoracic aortic arch aneurysms

Review

Ala Elhelali, Niamh Hynes, Declan Devane, Sherif Sultan, Edel P Kavanagh, Liam Morris, Dave Veerasingam, Fionnuala Jordan

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012923.pub2

2018 Jan 19

Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for thoracic aortic arch aneurysms

Protocol

Ala Elhelali, Niamh Hynes, Declan Devane, Sherif Sultan, Edel P Kavanagh, Liam Morris, Dave Veerasingam, Fionnuala Jordan

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012923

Notes

Parts of the methods section of this protocol are based on a standard template established by the Cochrane Vascular group and based on a template developed by our group.

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Table 1. What is the comparative effectiveness and safety of hybrid repair versus open surgical repair of thoracic aortic arch aneurysms?

Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for thoracic aortic arch aneurysms

Patient or population: patients with a diagnosis of thoracic aortic arch aneurysms

Settings: hospital, elective and emergency

Intervention: hybrid repair

Comparison: conventional 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

Hybrid repair

Aneurysm related mortality

30 days

Follow up: median N

Study population

HR

N

(N to N)

N
(N)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

N per 1000

(N to N)

N per 1000

(N to N)

Aneurysm related mortality

12 months

Follow up: median N

Study population

HR

N

(N to N)

N
(N)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

N per 1000

(N to N)

N per 1000

(N to N)

Neurological deficit1

Follow up: median N

Study population

RR

N

(N to N)

N

(N to N)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

N per 1000

N per 1000

(N to N)

Cardiovascular event2

Follow up: median N

Study population

RR

N

(N to N)

N

(N to N)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

N per 1000

(N to N)

N per 1000

(N to N)

Respiratory compromise

Follow up: median N

Study population

RR

N

(N to N)

N

(N to N)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

N per 1000

(N to N)

N per 1000

(N to N)

Graft patency

Follow up: median N

Study population

RR

N

(N to N)

N

(N to N)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

N per 1000

(N to N)

N per 1000

(N to N)

Reintervention

Follow up: median N

Study population

RR

N

(N to N)

N

(N to N)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

N per 1000

(N to N)

N per 1000

(N to N)

*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; HR: Hazard ratio; N: Number; RR: Risk ratio; OSR: open surgical repair

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.

1 A neurological deficit event includes stroke or paraplegia
2 A cardiovascular event includes myocardial ischaemia or heart failure, or low cardiac output syndrome, or arrhythmia, or pericardial effusion

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. What is the comparative effectiveness and safety of hybrid repair versus open surgical repair of thoracic aortic arch aneurysms?
Ir a la tabla del protocolo