Endovascular Treatment of Type A Aortic Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Using Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Objective: The undisputed gold standard of treatment for type A aortic dissections (TAAD) is open surgery. Anecdotal reports have assessed thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) as a last resort for highly selected candidates. The present study aims to evaluate endovascular outcomes in TAAD patients who are unsuitable for open surgery whilst having TEVAR-compatible aortic anatomy. Methods: A PRISMA-compliant systematic search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed up to 19 May 2022. Time-to-event data were reconstructed using Kaplan–Meier curves from the source literature. Results: In 20 eligible studies, 311 patients underwent TEVAR for acute, subacute, or chronic TAAD. Mean age at the time of the operation was 60.70 ± 8.00 years and 75.48% (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 60.33–88.46%) of the included patients were males. Mean operative time was 169.40 ± 30.70 min. Overall, 0.44% (95% CI, 0.00–4.83%) of the cases were converted to salvage open surgery. Technical failure, stroke, and endoleaks occurred in 0.22%, 0.1%, and 8.52% of the cohort, respectively. Thirty-day postoperative complication rate was 7.08% (95% CI, 1.52–14.97%), whereas late complications developed in 16.89% (95% CI, 7.75–27.88%) of the patients. One-, three-, and five-year survival rates were estimated at 87.15%, 82.52% and 82.31%, respectively. Reintervention was required in 8.38% of the cohort over a mean follow-up of 32.40 ± 24.40 months. Conclusions: TEVAR seems to be feasible in highly selected patients with TAAD who cannot tolerate open surgery. Overcoming technical limitations and acquiring long-term data are warranted to safely define the place of endovascular treatment in the armamentarium of TAAD repair

Renal outcomes in valve-in-valve transcatheter versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) and the requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) remain common and significant complications of both transcatheter valve-in-valve aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Nevertheless, the understanding of renal outcomes in the population undergoing either redo SAVR or ViV-TAVR remains controversial. METHODS: A systematic database search with meta-analysis was conducted of comparative original articles of ViV-TAVR versus redo SAVR in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar, from inception to September 2021. Primary outcomes were AKI and RRT. Secondary outcomes were stroke, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation rate, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Our search yielded 5435 relevant studies. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 11,198 patients. We found ViV-TAVR to be associated with lower rates of AKI, postoperative RRT, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality. No significant difference was observed in terms of stroke rate. The mean incidence of AKI in ViV-TAVR was 6.95% (±6%) and in redo SAVR was 15.2% (±9.6%). For RRT, our data showed that VIV-TAVR to be 1.48% (±1.46%) and redo SAVR to be 8.54% (±8.06%). CONCLUSION: Renoprotective strategies should be put into place to prevent and reduce AKI incidence regardless of the treatment modality. Patients undergoing re-intervention for the aortic valve constitute a high-risk and frail population in which ViV-TAVR demonstrated it might be a feasible option for carefully selected patients. Long-term follow-up data and randomized control trials will be needed to evaluate mortality and morbidity outcomes between these 2 treatments

Long-term outcomes of total arch replacement versus proximal aortic replacement in acute type A aortic dissection: Meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of a conservative approach (with proximal aortic replacement with or without hemiarch replacement) versus an aggressive approach (with total aortic arch replacement) in the treatment of acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data from studies with follow-up comparing the aforementioned approaches to treat patients with ATAAD. RESULTS: Eighteen studies met our eligibility criteria, comprising 5243 patients with follow-up (Conservative: 3676 patients; Aggressive: 1567 patients). We observed a statistically significant difference in overall survival favoring the aggressive approach (hazard ratios [HR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.98, p = .022), but no statistically significant difference in the risk of reoperation (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66-1.2, p = .439) in the overall follow-up. Landmark analyses revealed that, in the first 3 months after the procedure, mortality rates were comparable between conservative and aggressive approaches (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88-1.24, p = .627), but the results beyond 3 months showed improved survival in patients undergoing the aggressive surgical procedure (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.85, p < .001). The landmark analyses also revealed that, in the first 7 years after the procedure, reoperation rates were comparable between the approaches (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76-1.40, p = .848), but the results beyond 7 years showed a lower risk of reoperation in patients undergoing the aggressive surgical procedure (HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01-0.75, p = .025). CONCLUSION: The aggressive approach seems to confer better long-term survival and lower risk of the need for reoperation in the follow-up of patients treated for ATAAD