Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes Following Endovascular and Open Repair for Infective Native Aortic Aneurysms

Abstract

The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to demonstrate the clinical outcomes of open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for infective native aortic aneurysms (INAAs). MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were searched for articles reporting OSR and/or EVAR repair of INAA. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Moga-Score. Random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled measures. A total of 34 studies were included, with 22 studies reporting OSR alone, 6 studies reporting EVAR alone and 6 comparative studies for INAAs. The pooled estimates of infection-related complications (IRCs) were 8.2% (95% CI 4.9%-12.2%) in OSR cohort and 23.2% (95% CI 16.1%-31.0%) in EVAR cohort. EVAR was associated with a significantly increased risk of IRCs compared with OSR during follow-up (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.7). As for survival outcomes, the summary estimate rate of all cause 30-day, 3-month and 1-year mortality in OSR cohort were 11.7% (95% CI 7.7%-16.1%), 21.6% (95%CI 16.3%-27.4%) and 28.3% (95% CI 20.5%-36.7%; I2=50.47%), respectively. For EVAR cohort, the summary estimate rate of all cause 30-day, 3-month and 1-year mortality were 4.9% (95% CI 1.1%-10.4%), 9.4% (95% CI 2.7%-18.7%) and 22.2% (95% CI 12.4%-33.7%), respectively. EVAR was associated with a significantly decreased of 30-day mortality (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.6). However, no difference was found between EVAR and OSR in 3-month (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0-1.1), 1-year all-cause mortality (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.1-1.1) or aneurysm-related mortality (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.5-3.9). Moreover, no difference of incidence of reintervention was observed (OR 2.6, 95% CI 0.9-7.7; I2=53.7%) between two groups. EVAR could provide better short-term survival than OSR in patients with INAAs. However, patients undergoing EVAR suffered from higher risks of IRCs. EVAR could be considered as an alternative for low-risk patients with well-controlled infections or patients considered high-risk for open reconstruction.