Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Endovascular versus conventional open surgical repair for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012926.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 01 abril 2022see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Vascular

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2022 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

  • Sherif Sultan

    Vascular Surgery, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland

  • Jamie Concannon

    Biomedical Engineering, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

  • Dave Veerasingam

    Cardiothoracic Surgery, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland

  • Wael Tawfick

    Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Western Vascular Institute, University College Hospital, Galway, Ireland

  • Peter McHugh

    Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

  • Fionnuala Jordan

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

  • Niamh Hynes

    Correspondencia a: CURAM, SFI Research Centre for Medical Devices, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

    [email protected]

Contributions of authors

SS: Designing and drafting protocol, screening and study selection, data interpretation, review drafting and future review updates

JC: Designing and drafting protocol, acquiring trial reports, trial selection, and review drafting

DV: Designing and drafting protocol, review drafting and future review updates

WT: Acquiring trial reports, study selection, review drafting and future review updates

PMcH: Designing and drafting protocol, data interpretation, review drafting and future review updates

FJ: Designing and drafting protocol, methodology review, review drafting and future review updates

NH: Designing and drafting protocol, screening, acquiring trial reports, study selection, review drafting and future review updates

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support provided

External sources

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

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

Declarations of interest

SS: none known

JC: none known

DV: none known

WT: none known

PMcH: none known

FJ: none known

NH: declares her institution has received payment from Jotec/Cryolife for advanced aortic fellowship training at Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Cochrane Vascular for the guidance and support they provided during the preparation of this full review. We would also like to thank National University of Ireland Galway for their support.

The review authors, and the Cochrane Vascular editorial base, wish to thank the following peer reviewers for their comments: Professor Piergiorgio Cao, Vascular Surgery Unit, Hospital S. Camillo‐Forlanini, Rome, Italy; Dr Peter Henke, Department of Surgery Cardiovascular Center, University of Michigan, USA; Dr Miranda Witheford MD PhD FRCSC, Division of Vascular Surgery, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Canada; Lucas Henrique Caetano Carmona dos Santos, São Paulo, Brazil.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2022 Apr 01

Endovascular versus conventional open surgical repair for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

Review

Sherif Sultan, Jamie Concannon, Dave Veerasingam, Wael Tawfick, Peter McHugh, Fionnuala Jordan, Niamh Hynes

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012926.pub2

2018 Jan 19

Endovascular versus conventional open surgical repair for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

Protocol

Jamie Concannon, Niamh Hynes, Dave Veerasingam, Edel P Kavanagh, J P McGarry, Sherif Sultan, Peter McHugh, Fionnuala Jordan

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012926

Differences between protocol and review

None

Notes

Parts of the Methods section of this review are based on a standard template established by Cochrane Vascular and based on a template developed by our review team.

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Humans;

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.

Study flow diagram

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Table 1. Example summary of findings table

Endovascular repair compared with conventional open surgery for TAAAs

Patient or population: people with a diagnosis of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm

Settings: hospital ‐ elective and emergency

Intervention: endovascular repair

Comparison: conventional OSR

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with conventional OSR

Risk with endovascular repair

Prevention of aneurysm rupture (number of participants without a rupture) (5 years)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aneurysm‐related mortality (30 days)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aneurysm‐related mortality (12 months)

 

 

 

 

 

 

All‐cause mortality (5 years)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spinal cord ischaemia (paraplegia, paraparesis) (5 years)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visceral arterial branch compromise causing mesenteric ischaemia or renal failure (5 years)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rate of reintervention (5 years)

 

 

 

 

 

 

*The risk in the intervention group (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; OSR: open surgical repair; TAAs: thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Example summary of findings table
Ir a la tabla de la revisión