Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Endovascular versus conventional open surgical repair for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

Esta versión no es la más reciente

ver la versión actual 01 abril 2022

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012926Copiar 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

  • Jamie Concannon

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

    [email protected]

  • Niamh Hynes

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

  • Dave Veerasingam

    Cardiothoracic Surgery, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland

  • Edel P Kavanagh

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

  • J P McGarry

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

  • Sherif Sultan

    Vascular Surgery, Galway University 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

Contributions of authors

JC: designing and drafting protocol, acquiring trial reports, trial selection, data extraction, data analysis, data interpretation, review drafting and future review updates.
NH: designing and revising protocol, trial selection and data interpretation.
DV: revising protocol and review drafting.
EPK: designing and revising protocol, acquiring trial reports, trial selection and data extraction.
JMcG: revising protocol and review drafting.
SS: revising protocol, review drafting and guarantor of the review.
PMcH: revising protocol and review drafting.
FJ: designing and revising protocol, and data interpretation.

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 editorial base is supported by the Chief Scientist Office.

Declarations of interest

JC: none known.
NH: received payment for her role on the Lake Region Medical Peripheral Advisory Board and for consultation on Regulatory Documents. Her institute received payment from Gore Medical for provision of training on, and development of, presentations on endovascular aortic repair. Received payment from Enterprise Ireland Bioinnovate Fellow for working on medical device design at Boston Scientific, and from Cordis/Cardinal Health for her role as Principal Investigator in the INSIGHT Post Market Surveillance Trial of the Incraft abdominal aortic aneurysm device. She has declared that she has no competing interests, relationships, conditions or circumstances that will conflict with this review.
DV: none known.
EPK: none known.
JMcG: none known.
SS: his institution received payment from Gore Medical for training physicians on endovascular aortic repair and from Cordis/Cardinal Health for his role as Principal Investigator in the INSIGHT Post Market Surveillance Trial of the Incraft abdominal aortic endograft. He has declared that he has no conflict of interest that will affect this review.
PMcH: none known.
FJ: none known.

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to the Cochrane Vascular for their support and guidance in the preparation of this protocol.

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

Notes

Parts of the 'Methods' section of this protocol were based on a standard template established by Cochrane Vascular.

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. Is endovascular repair an effective treatment for TAAAs?

Endovascular repair compared with conventional open surgery for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA)

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

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

Prevention of aneurysm rupture (defined as number of participants without a rupture)

(5 years)

Aneurysm related mortality

(12 months)

All cause mortality

(5 years)

Spinal cord ischaemia (paraplegia, paraperesis)

(5 years)

Visceral arterial branch compromise causing, mesenteric ischaemia, and renal failure

(5 years)

Rate of reintervention

(5 years)

Conversion to open repair

(5 years)

*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; RR: Risk ratio.

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.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Is endovascular repair an effective treatment for TAAAs?
Ir a la tabla del protocolo