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.