Next Article in Journal
Anthracycline’s Effects on Heart Rate Variability in Children with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Early Toxicity Signs—Pilot Study
Next Article in Special Issue
New Directions in Diagnostics for Aortic Aneurysms: Biomarkers and Machine Learning
Previous Article in Journal
Perioperative Complications in Patients with Preeclampsia Undergoing Caesarean Section Surgery
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sizing the Frozen Elephant Trunk Based on Aortic Pathology and the Importance of Pre-Operative Imaging
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 22
10.3390/jcm12227051
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

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

by
Konstantinos S. Mylonas
1,2,†,
Ioannis Zoupas
2,3,*,†,
Panagiotis T. Tasoudis
3,
Evangelos Vitkos
4,
George T. Stavridis
1 and
Dimitrios V. Avgerinos
1
1
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center, 176 74 Athens, Greece
2
School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Mikras Asias Str. 75, 115 27 Athens, Greece
3
Surgery Working Group, Society of Junior Doctors, 151 23 Athens, Greece
4
Department of General Surgery, General Hospital of Katerini, 601 00 Katerini, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(22), 7051; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227051
Submission received: 11 October 2023 / Revised: 31 October 2023 / Accepted: 7 November 2023 / Published: 12 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Surgical Approaches for Complex Thoracic Aortic Diseases)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
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.

1. Introduction

The spectrum of acute aortic syndrome (AAS) includes penetrating aortic ulcer, intramural hematoma, acute aortic dissection (AAD), and traumatic aortic injury [1]. AAD is the most frequent (80–90%) and severe form of AAS. Annually, it affects 6000–10,000 people in the United States [1,2] and approximately 6 per 100,000 people in the United Kingdom [3]. Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection (TAAD) involves any part of the aorta proximal to the origin of the left subclavian artery. It primarily affects males in the seventh decade of their lives and comprises about 2/3 of AADs [4,5,6]. TAAD has a mortality rate of 1–2% per hour and approximately half of these patients will expire within 24 h of disease onset [2,7].
The standard approach after TAAD diagnosis is direct transfer to the operating room for emergent open surgical repair [2]. Perioperative mortality has been estimated at 13–25%, while five- and ten-year survival rates have been reported to be around 70–75%, respectively [2,8]. Nevertheless, about one in four TAAD patients are deemed ineligible for surgery on account of severe comorbidities, advanced age, and/or patient refusal. Historically, this patient population has been managed medically with an in-hospital mortality of 60% [9,10]. Anecdotal reports have assessed thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) as a last resort for poor surgical candidates [11]. Albeit promising, the most relevant published literature consists of small case series and no device has been formally approved for the endovascular repair of TAAD [10].
In the present study, we sought to systematically review and meta-analyze all available data exploring the role of endovascular treatment for acute, subacute, and chronic TAAD. To maximize the statistical robustness of our study, we reconstructed patient-level time-to-event data directly from the original Kaplan–Meier curves.

2. Methods

2.1. Systematic Search and Eligibility Criteria

Our study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) (Supplementary Figure S1) and was agreed upon by all authors [12]. Included studies were published in English and reported original patient data (clinical trials, cohort studies and case series). Only studies describing TEVAR for TAAD patients were considered. Reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, irrelevant studies, and manuscripts written in languages other than English were disqualified. Studies reporting on hybrid procedures were also excluded.
A systematic search was conducted up to 19 May 2022, and assessed studies from PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane databases. Two independent reviewers (IZ and EV) searched these registries using the following algorithm: ((TEVAR) OR (ENDOVASCULAR) OR (Endograft)) AND ((“type A”) OR (“Debakey type I”) OR (“Debakey type II”)) AND (“aortic dissection”) NOT (“type B”). All conflicts regarding study eligibility were resolved with the assistance of a third, more experienced reviewer (PT). Our study protocol is registered at PROSPERO (ID number: CRD42022369078).

2.2. Data Extraction

Two independent reviewers (IZ, EV) performed data extraction using a standardized pre-designed formula for evidence collection. Conflicts were brought to a third researcher’s attention (PT) and resolved. The following patient features were extracted: age, sex, smoking habits, presence of diabetes, coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral artery disease (PAD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hypertension (HTN), connective tissue disease, dyslipidemia, prior cardiac surgery, prior aortic interventions, stroke history, aortic regurgitation or malperfusion prior to the operation, and heart and renal failure. Operation time (minutes), disease timeline (acute, subacute, or chronic TAAD), follow-up (months), vascular access site, type of device used, and concomitant procedures were also extracted. Finally, we reviewed information regarding the presence of endoleaks, development of new dissection (retrograde or not), technical failure, post-operative stroke, reintervention rates, conversion to salvage open surgery, as well as mortality rates (30-day and late (after 30 days)).

2.3. Statistical Analysis

2.3.1. Data Pooling and Patient Feature Meta-Analysis

The techniques of Hozo et al. [13] and Wan et al. [14] were utilized to calculate the standard deviations (SDs) and mean values of continuous variables whenever medians and ranges or median and interquartile ranges were provided. To assess the occurrence rates of several events and the presence of between-study heterogeneity, we used the χ2-based Q statistic (significant if p < 0.1) and I2. All analyses were performed using STATA MP 16.0 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA).

2.3.2. Reconstruction of Patient Time-to-Event Data and Survival Meta-Analysis

We reconstructed individualized patient data (IPD) from Kaplan–Meier (KM) curves of the included studies, whenever they were available. We followed the methodology described by Wei et al. [15] and Guyot et al. [16]. High quality screenshots from the KM curves were acquired and Web Plot Digitizer was used to digitize them. Every added spot had to represent a specific Cartesian coordinate (also known as a time point and its corresponding survival information), so that this information could be extracted. Isotonic regression was used to identify deviations from monotonicity, which were managed with a pool-adjacent-violators algorithm. Extractable IPDs were then incorporated into STATA MP 16.0 in order to create a new KM curve that would include data from all available KM curves. This method provided us with pooled data regarding survival rates.

2.3.3. Risk-of-Bias Assessment

The quality of the data presented in the included studies was evaluated using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) scale (Supplementary Table S1) [17]. The follow-up time sufficiency cut-off value was set at 12 months after the operation for each study.

3. Results

3.1. Literature Search

The initial search yielded a total of 1274 records. Ultimately, 20 studies met all of the inclusion criteria and were eventually included. Eight additional studies did not make it through the final selection process due to data overlap [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. In total, we analyzed data from 311 patients with TAAD that underwent TEVAR (Table 1).

3.2. Basic Demographics and Medical History

Overall, 75.48% (95% CI, 60.33–88.46%) of the patients were males and mean age at the time of the operation was 60.70 ± 8.00 years. The vast majority of the patients had hypertension (90.97%; 95% CI, 81.60–97.79%). In terms of additional comorbidities, 49.97% (95% CI, 26.70–73.25%) were active smokers, 24.29% (95% CI, 6.97–45.87%) had dyslipidemia, 24.02% (95% CI, 7.77–43.94%) had a history of CAD, 20.18% (95% CI, 4.80–40.30%) had diabetes mellitus, and 20.03% (95% CI, 1.47–47.32%) had congestive heart failure (CHF).
Indications for TEVAR over open surgical repair were reported for 48.09% of our cohort. Age greater than 70 years was cited as the incentive for TEVAR in 19.01% (95% CI, 1.55–44.78%), previous cardiac surgery in 9.07% (95% CI, 0.13–24.94%), severe COPD in 5.54% (95% CI, 0.61–13.24%), a history of cerebrovascular accidents in 4.81% (95% CI, 0.00–16.12%), severe renal failure in 3.55% (95% CI, 0.02–10.56%), CHF in 3.54% (95% CI, 0.00–12.26%), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Class III or IV in 1.51% (95% CI, 0.00–10.42%), and patient preference in 1.06% (95% CI, 0.00–19.82%).
In addition, 11.49% (95% CI, 3.57–21.81%) had PAD, 7.42% (95% CI, 1.62–15.59%) had COPD, 7.79% (95% CI, 1.83–16.07%) had a history of cerebral stroke, and 7.20% (95% CI, 2.28–13.71%) suffered from renal failure. Only, two patients had connective tissue disorders. Lastly, 26.20% (95% CI, 11.42–43.43%) had undergone prior cardiothoracic surgical procedures, while 13.22% (95% CI, 3.29–26.51%) had prior aortic interventions performed. Specifically, seven (46.70%) patients had a history of aortic valve replacement, three (20.0%) were subjected to open aortic repair for dissection, three received a Bentall procedure, one (6.7%) a Wheat procedure and another (6.70%) patient had a history of a prior TEVAR. Significant cumulative details regarding patient demographics and medical history are provided in Table 2.

3.3. Disease and Peri-Operative Details

Data regarding the timing of TAAD were available in 16/20 studies [26,27,28,31,33,34,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. In total, 72.00% (95% CI, 52.45–88.64%) of our cohort suffered from acute TAAD (<14 days), 4.12% (95% CI, 0.00–19.19%) had subacute TAAD (15–90 days), while chronic dissection (>90 days) was present in 12.75% (95% CI, 2.24–47.09%) of the reported patients. The remaining 11.13% refers to the four studies that did not provide data regarding TAAD timing. Overall, 17.57% (95% CI, 0.00–65.35%) had aortic regurgitation (AR), while 15.77% (95% CI, 0.77–39.16%) suffered from organ malperfusion prior to the operation.
Vascular access through the femoral artery was preferred in 15 out of 16 included studies that reported relevant data. In detail, femoral access was chosen in 126 (57.01%) patients, femoral with adjunctive left (LCA) or right carotid artery (RCA) in 58 (26.24%), femoral with adjunctive LCA in 24 (10.85%), femoral with adjunctive brachial artery in 9 (4.07%), LCA in 2 (0.90%), and the transapical approach was chosen in 2 (0.90%) patients.
To avoid hemodynamic displacement forces, 84 (39.81%) patients underwent drug-induced hypotension, rapid ventricular pacing was used in 49 (23.22%) patients, while the inferior vena cava was transiently obstructed in 16 (7.58%) patients. Lastly, hypotension through ventricular tachycardia was induced in four (1.89%) patients by touching the left ventricle with the nose of the cone of the delivery system. Details regarding the devices used, vascular access, and cardiac output suppression mechanisms are provided in Table 3.
Furthermore, 37 (16.06% (95% CI, 1.61–37.26%)) patients underwent concomitant procedures during TEVAR. Among them, 13 (35.13%) underwent LCA-RCA bypass, 11 (29.72%) had LCA-Left subclavian artery (LSA) bypass, 3 (8.10%) had an aorta-LSA bypass, 2 had a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), 1 (2.70%) had an aorta-LCA bypass and another patient (2.70%) underwent innominate artery scalloping. Mean operative time was 169.40 ± 30.70 min. Mean length of stay in the intensive care unit was 2.5 ± 0.9 days. The average length of hospital stay was 11.4 ± 4.2 days. Only 0.64% (95% CI, 0.00–5.34%) of the cases were converted to open salvage surgery.

3.4. Complications

The thirty-day complication rate was 7.08% (95% CI, 1.52–14.97%) (n = 33 patients), while 58 patients. (16.89% (95% CI, 7.75–27.88%)) developed late complications (>30 days after the operations). Overall, 8.52% of the participants. (95% CI, 2.15–17.24%) experienced endoleaks, 0.22% (95% CI, 0.00–2.11%) had technical failure during deployment of the graft as reported by the authors, and 0.10% (95% CI, 0.00–1.73%) experienced a post-operative stroke. Details about early and late morbidity including conversion to open surgery are provided in Table 4.

3.5. Reinterventions

Reinterventions were required in 8.38% (95% CI, 1.68–17.90%) (n = 36) of the patients within a mean follow-up time of 32.40 ± 24.40 months. In total, 12 (33.33%) required an open repair, 6 (16.67%) underwent additional TEVAR, 4 (11.11%) had an aortic cuff installed, 4 (11.11%) underwent balloon expansion, 3 (8.33%) had embolization, 1 (2.77%) had an axillo-axillary bypass, and 1 (2.77%) had a TAVR. Peri-operative findings are summarized in Table 5 and Table 6 and a reconstructed Kaplan–Meier curve regarding freedom from reintervention is demonstrated in Figure 1. A diagram regarding reintervention rates is demonstrated in Supplementary Figure S2.

3.6. Overall Survival and Mortality

Pooled 30-day and late mortality rates were 2.46% (95% CI, 0.31–5.90%) and 1.59% (0.00–6.84%), respectively. Forest plots demonstrating pooled event rates for mortality are provided in Supplementary Figures S3 and S4.
Based on the IPD, one-, three-, and five-year survival rates following TEVAR were 87.15%, 82.52% and 82.31%, respectively (Figure 2). Side-by-side comparison of the original KM curves and our reconstructed ones are provided in Supplementary Figure S5.

4. Discussion

The American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology jointly updated aortic disease treatment guidelines in 2022. In this statement, endovascular treatment of TAAD was not formally endorsed due to scarcity of high-quality cumulative data [8]. The present systematic review addresses this gap in the literature and constitutes the most comprehensive synopsis of TAAD management with TEVAR to date [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. Herein, mean patient age at the time of intervention was 60.7 years. The main reasons that TEVAR was preferred over open surgery included advanced age, a history of prior cardiac surgery, and serious comorbidities (i.e., severe COPD, a history of stroke, end stage renal failure, etc.) [46]. Although likely that all patients underwent endovascular treatment for similar reasons, the incentive for choosing TEVAR over open surgery was not reported in approximately half of the studies.
In our analysis, the technical failure rate was 0.22% (95% CI, 0.00–2.11%), which is substantially lower compared to historical data (8–23%) [10]. This discrepancy may be at least partly attributed to differences in the definition of TEVAR success. For example, Tsilimparis et al. recognized technical success as the uneventful deployment of the graft at the targeted landing zone [44]. Vallabhajosyula et al. defined technical success as device deployment with no intraoperative endoleak [41]. Ronchey et al. [27] and Ye et al. [39] determined technical success as the complete exclusion of the TAAD entry tear.
The overall endoleak rate in our pooled analysis was less than 9% which is approximately two times lower compared to both preliminary reports of ascending aortic TEVAR (16%) and endovascular approaches for descending aortic disease (18%) [47]. Not surprisingly, most endoleaks following TEVAR for TAAD were type I. Our pooled analysis revealed an early mortality rate of 2.46% (95% CI, 0.31–5.90%) in patients undergoing endovascular treatment of TAAD. On IPD-level analysis, one-, three-, and five-year survival rates following TEVAR were 87.15%, 82.52% and 82.31%, respectively. In highly selected patients with favorable aortic anatomy, survival with endovascular treatment appears to be superior to medical management alone (which carries a mortality rate of up to 60%) [9,48]. Interestingly enough, prognosis in our series was also substantially improved compared to previous meta-analyses where the overall mortality rate was reported to be as high as 17% (95% CI, 10–26%) [10]. Occlusion of the innominate artery as well as wire and device manipulation within the ascending aorta is thought to predispose to cerebrovascular accidents. These concerns were not validated herein since strokes developed in only 0.1% of our series. In the present study, pooled reintervention rates were 8.38% (95% CI, 1.68–17.90%) over a mean follow-up of 32.4 months. Similarly, these metrics appear to be 50% lower than previously reported (18%) [10].
In our study, 0.64% (95% CI, 0.00–5.34%) of the patients required conversions to open surgery. That said, we highly recommend keeping perfusion on standby in case conversion is warranted. Historically, the first successful endovascular repair of TAAD was reported by Dorros et al. in 2000 [49]. Even though there is no universally accepted operative technique, most centers favor the femoral artery for vascular access. Exceptions were noted by Wang et al. [30], Ye et al. [39], and Vallabhajosyula et al. [41], who utilized the left brachial, left common carotid, and left subclavian arteries, respectively. Shah et al. [50], also described the transapical method as an alternative for patients with unfavorable femoral anatomy.
Various descending aortic stent grafts have been deployed in the ascending aorta (Talent or VALOR graft (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA), W. L. Gore & Associates (Flagstaff, Arizona), Jotec (Hechingen, Germany), Zenith TX2 (Cook Medical, Ind., Bloomington, IN, USA)) [48]. Only the 65-mm Zenith Ascend TAA (Cook) was specifically designed for use in the ascending aorta [44]. Unique features of the ascending aorta include strong pulsatility, location-dependent hemodynamic shear stress forces, and finite length. As a result, grafts shorter than 10 cm are appropriate for ascending aortic TEVAR. Delivery systems also need to account for curved anatomy whilst accommodating crossing the aortic valve (if need be) [47]. Even though no cases of retrograde dissection from the entry site were noted in the published literature, these events can certainly also occur.
It should also be emphasized that not every TAAD case is amenable to endovascular treatment. First, the intimal tear has to be at least 10 mm above the sinotubular junction and more than 5 mm proximal to the innominate artery [50]. Coronary artery height should also be reviewed [10]. Furthermore, the long nose cone of the delivery system needs to be threaded via the aortic valve into the left ventricle to achieve the appropriate proximal stent graft deployment. Therefore, TEVAR may not be feasible in the setting of heavily calcified aortic stenosis or in the presence of mechanical prosthesis. Endovascular therapy should also be avoided in patients with connective tissue disorders and/or annuloaortic ectasia [50]. Lastly, TEVAR is not an appropriate option in the context of acute aortic regurgitation, where at a minimum, meticulous inspection of the aortic valve is requisite, if not its repair or replacement.
Methodological strengths of the present paper include: (1) a comprehensive search of the literature using rigorous and systematic methodology, (2) detailed patient-level extraction of time-to-event data, (3) standardized quality assessment of eligible studies, and (4) construction of Kaplan–Meier statistics using IPD. The main differences between our study and the older meta-analysis by DeFreitas et al. [10] are (a) the addition of 231 more patients and (b) the reconstruction of IPD using Kaplan–Meier curves. Regarding differences in inclusion criteria, we also chose to include (1) patients with chronic TAAD (operated >90 days after diagnosis), (2) patients who underwent in situ laser fenestration-assisted TEVAR, (3) patients with organ malperfusion at the time of the operation, (4) patients who underwent TEVAR with a pre-fenestrated graft and (5) patients with the dissection entry tear located in the descending thoracic aorta.
Finally, there are several limitations in this study that should be acknowledged. To begin with, as with any systematic review, the present analysis is subject to a certain degree of selection bias. Certain studies did not report full data for every outcome of interest and all analyses were performed using publicly available information. Of note, the exact anatomic location of the primary tear in relation to aortic arch vessels was not provided in the vast majority of the studies. Nevertheless, tear location can influence the choice of treatment methods rendering more complex interventions necessary (i.e., chimney technique and simple-branch/fenestrated stent-graft repair, or double fenestrated TEVAR). Regarding the entry tear location, we chose to include all the studies that reported on patients with TAAD who were treated endovascularly. That said, in our effort to best represent the nosological entity with this specific treatment, we have included both patients with an entry tear in the ascending and the descending aorta, as long as the dissection was specified as Type A. Furthermore, nearly all included studies are observational studies with lack of randomization. Also, since we have used the pool estimation of proportion to report the outcomes, it should be highlighted that there might be significant heterogeneity and bias, which could have significantly affected our outcomes. Additionally, TEVAR procedures were performed in different medical centers by various, yet extremely experienced endovascular operators. This heterogeneity, along with variations in follow-up routines, may affect the generalizability and applicability of our results to less specialized setups. It should also be emphasized that mean follow-up was 32.40 ± 24.40 months and as such the long-term outcomes of this approach cannot be fully quantified with the present analysis. Lastly, eligible studies did not provide granular data regarding their open surgical cohorts. Therefore, we could not perform a direct comparison of surgery versus TEVAR. The scarcity of detailed timing segmentation within the existing literature constrained our ability to stratify outcomes by TAAD category (acute/subacute/chronic). Our objective was to compile and present all available data in a manner that not only adheres closely to the reality presented within the existing studies but also offers reliability and utility for aortic guidelines and providers seeking actionable information. We believe that despite the aforementioned limitations, our method of analysis holds value in that it strives to encapsulate the most accurate representation of the available data, thereby providing insights that are both relevant and applicable in a practical context.

5. Conclusions

The present study utilized robust patient-level meta-analysis techniques to summarize contemporary experience with endovascular treatment of type A aortic dissections. Technical failure, stroke, and conversion to open surgery occurred in less than 0.7% of the cohort. The incidence of endoleak was also remarkably low (8.52%). One-, three-, and five-year survival rates were estimated at 87.15%, 82.52% and 82.31%, respectively. Reintervention was required in less than 9% of the patients over a mean follow-up of 32.4 months. These findings suggest that TEVAR may be a viable option for poor surgical candidates with TAAD in the setting of favorable aortic anatomy and at the hands of highly experienced endovascular teams. Additional research with longer follow-up is warranted to further define the role of endovascular therapy in Type A aortic dissections.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm12227051/s1, Figure S1: Flow diagram in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines; Figure S2: Forest Plot diagram demonstrating data for reintervention rates; Figure S3: Forest Plot diagram demonstrating data for early mortality event rates; Figure S4: Forest Plot diagram demonstrating data for late mortality event rates; Figure S5: Provided and Reconstructed Kaplan–Meier curves for observed survival from Higashigawa et al. [38]; Figure S6: Provided and Reconstructed Kaplan–Meier curves for observed survival from Yan et al. [36]; Table S1: Risk of bias assessment using the NHLBI tool.

Author Contributions

Conception and design: K.S.M. and D.V.A.; data collection: I.Z. and E.V.; statistical analysis: P.T.T., I.Z. and K.S.M.; first draft of the manuscript: K.S.M., I.Z., P.T.T., E.V., G.T.S. and D.V.A.; critical revision and approval: K.S.M., I.Z., P.T.T., E.V., G.T.S. and D.V.A.; supervision: D.V.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data available in a publicly accessible repository. The data presented in this study are openly available in the sources provided in the references section.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bossone, E.; Eagle, K.A. Epidemiology and management of aortic disease: Aortic aneurysms and acute aortic syndromes. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 2021, 18, 331–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Elsayed, R.S.; Cohen, R.G.; Fleischman, F.; Bowdish, M.E. Acute Type A Aortic Dissection. Cardiol. Clin. 2017, 35, 331–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Howard, D.P.; Banerjee, A.; Fairhead, J.F.; Perkins, J.; Silver, L.E.; Rothwell, P.M.; Oxford Vascular Study. Population-based study of incidence and outcome of acute aortic dissection and premorbid risk factor control: 10-year results from the Oxford Vascular Study. Circulation 2013, 127, 2031–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sherk, W.M.; Khaja, M.S.; Williams, D.M. Anatomy, Pathology, and Classification of Aortic Dissection. Technol. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2021, 24, 100746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mészáros, I.; Mórocz, J.; Szlávi, J.; Schmidt, J.; Tornóci, L.; Nagy, L.; Szép, L. Epidemiology and clinicopathology of aortic dissection. Chest 2000, 117, 1271–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bossone, E.; Carbone, A.; Eagle, K.A. Gender Differences in Acute Aortic Dissection. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kuang, J.; Yang, J.; Wang, Q.; Yu, C.; Li, Y.; Fan, R. A preoperative mortality risk assessment model for Stanford type A acute aortic dissection. BMC Cardiovasc. Disord. 2020, 20, 508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Writing Committee Members; Isselbacher, E.M.; Preventza, O.; Hamilton Black, J., 3rd; Augoustides, J.G.; Beck, A.W.; Bolen, A.W.; Braverman, A.C.; Bray, B.E.; Brown-Zimmerman, M.M.; et al. 2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2022, 28, e334–e482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Jassar, A.S.; Sundt, T.M., 3rd. How should we manage type A aortic dissection? Gen. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2019, 67, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. De Freitas, S.; Rossi, M.J.; Abramowitz, S.D.; Fatima, J.; Kiguchi, M.M.; Vallabhaneni, R.; Walsh, S.R.; Woo, E.Y. Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular interventions for Stanford type A aortic dissection. J. Vasc. Surg. 2021, 74, 1721–1731.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Hagan, P.G.; Nienaber, C.A.; Isselbacher, E.M.; Bruckman, D.; Karavite, D.J.; Russman, P.L.; Evangelista, A.; Fattori, R.; Suzuki, T.; Oh, J.K.; et al. The International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD): New insights into an old disease. JAMA 2000, 283, 897–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl h, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clin. Res. Ed) 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hozo, S.P.; Djulbegovic, B.; Hozo, I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2005, 5, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Wan, X.; Wang, W.; Liu, J.; Tong, T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2014, 14, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wei, Y.; Royston, P. Reconstructing time-to-event data from published Kaplan-Meier curves. Stata J. 2017, 17, 786–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Guyot, P.; Ades, A.E.; Ouwens, M.J.; Welton, N.J. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: Reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2012, 12, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Quality Assessment Tool for Case Series Studies. Available online: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-reduction/tools/case_series (accessed on 13 August 2022).
  18. Kato, N.; Shimono, T.; Hirano, T.; Ishida, M.; Yada, I.; Takeda, K. Transluminal placement of endovascular stent-grafts for the treatment of type A aortic dissection with an entry tear in the descending thoracic aorta. J. Vasc. Surg. 2001, 34, 1023–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Lu, Q.; Liu, L.; Chang, G.; Chen, X.; Feng, H.; Zhang, X.; Fu, W.; Dong, Z.; Jing, Z. Mid-term outcomes from a multicenter study: Is TEVAR safe for ascending aortic dissection? Int. J. Cardiol. 2018, 265, 218–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Wang, S.; Chang, G.; Li, X.; Hu, Z.; Li, S.; Yang, J.; Chen, W.; Li, J. Endovascular treatment of arch and proximal thoracic aortic lesions. J. Vasc. Surg. 2008, 48, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Qin, J.; Wu, X.; Li, W.; Ye, K.; Yin, M.; Liu, G.; Cui, C.; Zhao, Z.; Liu, X.; Lu, X. Laser fenestration of aortic arch stent grafts for endovascular treatment of retrograde type A dissection. Int. J. Cardiol. 2021, 328, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Omura, A.; Matsuda, H.; Matsuo, J.; Hori, Y.; Fukuda, T.; Inoue, Y.; Seike, Y.; Uehara, K.; Sasaki, H.; Kobayashi, J. Thoracic endovascular repair for retrograde acute type A aortic dissection as an alternative choice. Gen. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2020, 68, 1397–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Verscheure, D.; Haulon, S.; Tsilimparis, N.; Resch, T.; Wanhainen, A.; Mani, K.; Dias, N.; Sobocinski, J.; Eagleton, M.; Ferreira, M.; et al. Endovascular Treatment of Post Type A Chronic Aortic Arch Dissection with a Branched Endograft: Early Results from a Retrospective International Multicenter Study. Ann. Surg. 2021, 273, 997–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nienaber, C.A.; Sakalihasan, N.; Clough, R.E.; Aboukoura, M.; Mancuso, E.; Yeh, J.S.; Defraigne, J.; Cheshire, N.; Rosendahl, U.P.; Quarto, C.; et al. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in proximal (type A) aortic dissection: Ready for a broader application? J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2017, 153, S3–S11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Roselli, E.E.; Atkins, M.D.; Brinkman, W.; Coselli, J.; Desai, N.; Estrera, A.; Johnston, D.R.; Patel, H.; Preventza, O.; Vargo, P.R.; et al. ARISE: First-In-Human Evaluation of a Novel Stent Graft to Treat Ascending Aortic Dissection. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2022, 19, 15266028221095018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Hsieh, Y.K.; Lee, C.H. Experience of stent-graft repair in acute ascending aortic syndromes. J. Card. Surg. 2019, 34, 1012–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ronchey, S.; Serrao, E.; Alberti, V.; Fazzini, S.; Trimarchi, S.; Tolenaar, J.; Mangialardi, N. Endovascular stenting of the ascending aorta for type A aortic dissections in patients at high risk for open surgery. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2013, 45, 475–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chen, Y.Y.; Yen, H.T.; Wu, C.C.; Huang, D.K. Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type A Intramural Hematoma and Retrograde Thrombosed Type A Aortic Dissection: A Single-Center Experience. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2020, 65, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gao, F.; Zeng, Q.; Lin, F.; Ge, X. Sandwich Technique for Endovascular Repair of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2017, 24, 647–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, L.; Bai, L.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, J.; Li, X. Application of an extracorporeal prefenestrated stent graft in endovascular repair of ascending aorta and aortic arch lesions. Vascular 2021, 29, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mitreski, G.; Flanders, D.; Maingard, J.; Robinson, D.; Chuen, J.; Matalanis, G.; Seevanayagam, S.; Kok, H.K.; Ranatunga, D.; Asadi, H.; et al. STABILISE; treatment of aortic dissection, a single Centre experience. CVIR Endovasc. 2022, 5, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Roselli, E.E.; Idrees, J.J.; Johnston, D.R.; Eagleton, M.J.; Desai, M.Y.; Svensson, L.G. Zone zero thoracic endovascular aortic repair: A proposed modification to the classification of landing zones. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2018, 155, 1381–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, Z.; Lu, Q.; Feng, R.; Zhou, J.; Zhao, Z.; Bao, J.; Feng, X.; Feng, J.; Pei, Y.; Song, C.; et al. Outcomes of Endovascular Repair of Ascending Aortic Dissection in Patients Unsuitable for Direct Surgical Repair. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2016, 68, 1944–1954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shu, C.; Wang, T.; Li, Q.M.; Li, M.; Jiang, X.H.; Luo, M.Y.; Jiang, X.; Luo, M.; Li, X. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for retrograde type A aortic dissection with an entry tear in the descending aorta. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2012, 23, 453–460.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yuan, X.; Mitsis, A.; Mozalbat, D.; Nienaber, C.A. Alternative management of proximal aortic dissection: Concept and application. Indian J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2022, 38 (Suppl. S1), 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Yan, D.; Shi, H.; Qin, J.; Zhao, Z.; Yin, M.; Liu, X.; Ye, K.; Liu, G.; Li, W.; Lu, X. Outcomes of emergency in situ laser fenestration-assisted thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with acute Stanford type A aortic dissection unfit for open surgery. J. Vasc. Surg. 2020, 71, 1472–1479.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Wu, Q.; Lu, H.; Jiang, D.; Qiu, Z.; Rashid, J.; Xie, L.; Shen, Y.; Chen, L. Early Efficacy of In Situ Fenestration with a Triple Chimney Technique for High-Risk Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection: A Single-Center Retrospective Study. J. Interv. Cardiol. 2021, 2021, 5662697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Higashigawa, T.; Kato, N.; Nakajima, K.; Chino, S.; Hashimoto, T.; Ouchi, T.; Tokui, T.; Maze, Y.; Mizumoto, T.; Teranishi, S.; et al. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for retrograde type A aortic dissection. J. Vasc. Surg. 2019, 69, 1685–1693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Ye, C.; Chang, G.; Li, S.; Hu, Z.; Yao, C.; Chen, W.; Li, X.; Wang, S. Endovascular stent-graft treatment for Stanford type A aortic dissection. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2011, 42, 787–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Qin, J.; Zhao, Z.; Liu, G.; Ye, K.; Yin, M.; Cui, C.; Shi, H.; Peng, Z.; Jiang, M.; Liu, X.; et al. In situ diode laser fenestration of aortic arch stent grafts during thoracic endovascular aortic repair of Stanford type A aortic dissection. EuroIntervention 2019, 14, e1854–e1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Vallabhajosyula, P.; Gottret, J.P.; Bavaria, J.E.; Desai, N.D.; Szeto, W.Y. Endovascular repair of the ascending aorta in patients at high risk for open repair. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2015, 149, S144–S150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Khoynezhad, A.; Donayre, C.E.; Walot, I.; Koopmann, M.C.; Kopchok, G.E.; White, R.A. Feasibility of endovascular repair of ascending aortic pathologies as part of an FDA-approved physician-sponsored investigational device exemption. J. Vasc. Surg. 2016, 63, 1483–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Bernardes, R.C.; Navarro, T.P.; Reis, F.R.; Lima, L.C.; Monteiro, E.L.; Procopio, R.J.; Botelho, F.E.; Dardik, A. Early experience with off-the-shelf endografts using a zone 0 proximal landing site to treat the ascending aorta and arch. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2014, 148, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Tsilimparis, N.; Drewitz, S.; Detter, C.; Spanos, K.; von Kodolitsch, Y.; Rohlffs, F.; Reichenspurner, H.; Debus, E.S.; Kölbel, T. Endovascular repair of ascending aortic pathologies with tubular endografts: A single-center experience. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2019, 26, 439–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ghoreishi, M.; Shah, A.; Jeudy, J.; Pasrija, C.; Lebowitz, J.; Kaczorowski, D.; Gupta, A.; Toursavadkohi, S.; Taylor, B.S. Endovascular repair of ascending aortic disease in high-risk patients yields favorable outcome. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2020, 109, 678–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Berretta, P.; Patel, H.J.; Gleason, T.G.; Sundt, T.M.; Myrmel, T.; Desai, N.; Korach, A.; Panza, A.; Bavaria, J.; Khoynezhad, A.; et al. IRAD experience on surgical type A acute dissection patients: Results and predictors of mortality. Ann. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2016, 5, 346–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Baikoussis, N.G.; Antonopoulos, C.N.; Papakonstantinou, N.A.; Argiriou, M.; Geroulakos, G. Endovascular stent grafting for ascending aorta diseases. J. Vasc. Surg. 2017, 66, 1587–1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pape, L.A.; Awais, M.; Woznicki, E.M.; Suzuki, T.; Trimarchi, S.; Evangelista, A.; Myrmel, T.; Larsen, M.; Harris, K.M.; Greason, K.; et al. Presentation, Diagnosis, and Outcomes of Acute Aortic Dissection: 17-Year Trends from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2015, 66, 350–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dorros, G.; Dorros, A.M.; Planton, S.; O’Hair, D.; Zayed, M. Transseptal guidewire stabilization facilitates stent-graft deployment for persistent proximal ascending aortic dissection. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2000, 7, 506–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Shah, A.; Khoynezhad, A. Thoracic endovascular repair for acute type A aortic dissection: Operative technique. Ann. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2016, 5, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 12 07051 g001
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier curve demonstrating overall freedom from reintervention constructed by individualized patient data.
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier curve demonstrating overall freedom from reintervention constructed by individualized patient data.
Jcm 12 07051 g001
Jcm 12 07051 g002
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier curve demonstrating overall survival constructed by individualized patient data.
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier curve demonstrating overall survival constructed by individualized patient data.
Jcm 12 07051 g002
Table 1. Study characteristics of the included manuscripts.
Table 1. Study characteristics of the included manuscripts.
AuthorYearJournalCenterCountry/Region DesignStudy PeriodTEVAR
Hsieh et al. 2019 [26]2019Journal of Cardiac SurgeryChanghua Christian HospitalTaiwanRetrospective cohort2015–20184
Ronchey et al. 2013 [27]2013European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular SurgerySan Filippo Neri Hospital, RomeItalyRetrospective cohort2009–20124
Chen et al. 2019 [28]2019Annals of Vascular SurgeryKaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial HospitalTaiwanRetrospective cohort2017–20194
Gao et al. 2017 [29]2017Journal of Endovascular TherapyJiangya Haikou Hospital, Municipal Hospital of XinJiang, XinJiangChinaRetrospective cohort2013–20167
Wang et al. 2021 [30]2021VascularGeneral Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, NingxiaChinaRetrospective cohortApril 2016–June 20179
Mitreski et al. 2022 [31]2022CVIR EndovascularAustin Health, HeidelbergAustraliaRetrospective cohort2011–202010
Roselli et al. 2018 [32]2018The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryCleveland Clinic, ClevelandUSARetrospective cohort2006–201614
Li et al. 2016 [33] 2016Journal of the American College of Cardiology2nd Military Medical University, ShanghaiChinaRetrospective cohort2009–201115
Shu et al. 2012 [34]2012Journal of Vascular and Interventional RadiologyThe 2nd Xiang-ya Hospital of Central-south University, ChangshaChinaRetrospective cohort2006–201117
Yuan et al. 2022 [35]2022Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryCardiology and Aortic Centre, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, LondonUKRetrospective cohort2015–202019
Yan et al. 2019 [36]2019Journal of Vascular SurgeryShanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, ShanghaiChinaRetrospective cohortMarch 2016–December 201820
Wu et al. 2021 [37]2021Journal of Interventional CardiologyUnion Hospital, Fujian Medical University, FuzhouChinaRetrospective cohortJanuary 2018–December 201924
Higashigawa et al. 2019 [38]2019Journal of Vascular and Interventional RadiologyMulticenter (Japan)JapanRetrospective cohortMay 1997–January 201631
Ye et al. 2011 [39]2011European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular SurgeryThe First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, GuangzhouChinaRetrospective cohort2001–200945
Qin et al. 2019 [40]2019EuroInterventionShanghai Jiao Tong University, ShanghaiChinaRetrospective cohortApril 2014–May 201858
Vallabhajosyula et al. 2015 [41]2015The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryUniversity of Pennsylvania Medical Center, PhiladelphiaUSARetrospective cohort2007–20122
Khoynezhad et al. 2016 [42]2016Journal of Vascular SurgeryCedars-Sinai Medical Center, David Geffen UCLA School of Medicine, Los AngelesUSARCT2014–20162
Bernardes at al. 2014 [43]2014The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryMadre Teresa Hospital, Belo Horizonte, Minas GeraisBrazilRetrospective cohort2007–20122
Tsilimparis et al. 2019 [44]2019Journal of Endovascular TherapyGerman Aortic Center, University Heart Center, HamburgGermanyRetrospective cohort2010–201716
Ghoreishi et al. 2019 [45]2019The Annals of Thoracic SurgeryUniversity of Maryland School of Medicine, BaltimoreUSARetrospective cohort2018–20198
Abbreviations: USA = United States of America; UK = United Kingdom.
Table 2. Details of patient demographic characteristics and medical history.
Table 2. Details of patient demographic characteristics and medical history.
AuthorTEVARAge (SD) (Years)Males (n, %)Females (n, %)DM (n, %)COPD (n, %)HTN (n, %)
Hsieh et al. 2019 [26]456.25 (14.4)2 (50)2 (50)NRNRNR
Ronchey et al. 2013 [27]470 (7.65)2 (50)2 (50)1 (25)NR4 (100)
Chen et al. 2019 [28]467.25 (8.5)3 (75)1 (25)NRNRNR
Gao et al. 2017 [29]754.57 (10.25)7 (100)0 (0)NRNRNR
Wang et al. 2021 [30]9NR7 (77.8)2 (22.2)NRNR8 (88.9)
Mitreski et al. 2022 [31]1060.7 (11.47)6 (60)4 (40)NRNRNR
Roselli et al. 2018 [32]14NE4 (28.6)10 (71.4)5 (35.7)4 (28.6)13 (92.9)
Li et al. 2016 [33] 1565 (12.1)12 (80)3 (20(NR3 (20)NR
Shu et al. 2012 [34]1754.5 (10.3)16 (94.1)1 (5.9)4 (23.5)0 (0)17 (100)
Yuan et al. 2022 [35]19NRNRNRNRNRNR
Yan et al. 2019 [36]2067 (NR)18 (90)2 (10)9 (45)6 (30)13 (65)
Wu et al. 2021 [37]2465.4 (9.3)22 (91.7)2 (8.3)3 (12.5)2 (8.3)23 (95.8)
Higashigawa et al. 2019 [38]3164 (11.0)30 (96.8)1 (3.2)1 (3.2)1 (3.2)22 (70.9)
Ye et al. 2011 [39]4551 (NR)41 (91.1)4 (8.9)NRNR41 (91.1)
Qin et al. 2019 [40]5858 (NR)32 (55.1)26 (44.9)33 (56.9)4 (6.9)42 (72.4)
Vallabhajosyula et al. 2015 [41]284 (NR)0 (0)2 (100)0 (0)0 (0)2 100)
Khoynezhad et al. 2016 [42]286 (NR)1 (50)1 (50)0 (0)NR1 (50)
Bernardes at al. 2014 [43]252.5 (NR)0 (0)2 (100)0 (0)0 (0)2 (100)
Tsilimparis et al. 2019 [44]1670 (15)NENENRNRNR
Ghoreishi et al. 2019 [45]869 (9)NENENR1 (12.5)8 (100)
NR = not reported; NE = non-extractable; DM = Diabetes Mellitus; COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; HTN = hypertension.
Table 3. Vascular access, devices, and cardiac output suppression mechanisms.
Table 3. Vascular access, devices, and cardiac output suppression mechanisms.
AuthorTEVAR Access Site (n, %)Device Used (n, %)Mechanism of Cardiac Output Suppression (n, %)
Hsieh et al. 2019 [26]4Femoral (n = 4, 100)GORE (n = 2, 50), MEDTRONIC (n = 1, 25)VTACH (n = 4, 100)
Ronchey et al. 2013 [27]4Femoral (n = 4, 100)Cook TX2 (n = 1, 25), Off-shelf Cook (n = 3, 75)RVP (n = 4, 100)
Chen et al. 2019 [28]4Femoral (n = 4, 100)NRDHTN (n = 4, 100)
Gao et al. 2017 [29]7Femoral (n = 7, 100)GORE TAG (n = 7, 100)DHTN (n = 7, 100)
Wang et al. 2021 [30]9Femoral with adjunctive brachial (n = 9, 100)MEDTRONIC Valiant Captiva (n = 9, 100)DHTN (n = 9, 100%
Mitreski et al. 2022 [31]10Femoral (n = 10, 100)COOK Zenith TX2 (n = 10, 100) NR
Roselli et al. 2018 [32]14NRNRRVP (n = 14, 100)
Li et al. 2016 [33] 15Femoral (n = 15, 100)COOK Zenith TX2 Pro Form (n = 15, 100)NR
Shu et al. 2012 [34]17Femoral (n = 17, 100)MicroPort Hercules (n = 10, 58.9), COOK Zenith (n = 5, 29.4), MEDTRONIC Valiant (n = 2, 11.8)DHTN (n = 17, 100
Yuan et al. 2022 [35]19Femoral (n = 19, 100)NRRVP (n = 19, 100)
Yan et al. 2019 [36]20Femoral (n = 20, 100)GORE TAG (n = 20, 100)NR
Wu et al. 2021 [37]24Femoral with adjunctive LCA (n = 24, 100)NRNR
Higashigawa et al. 2019 [38]31NRNRNR
Ye et al. 2011 [39]45LCA (n = 2, 4.4), femoral (n = 22, 48.8)NRDHTN (n = 45, 100)
Qin et al. 2019 [40]58Femoral with adjunctive LCA or RCA (n = 58, 100)GORE TAG (n = 58, 100)SCA (n = 58, 100)
Vallabhajosyula et al. 2015 [41]2Transapical (n = 2, 100)COOK Zenith TX2 (n = 2, 100)RVP (n = 2, 100)
Khoynezhad et al. 2016 [42]2Femoral (n = 2, 100)MEDTRONIC Valiant PS-IDE (n = 2, 100)RVP (n = 2, 100)
Bernardes at al. 2014 [43]2Femoral (n = 2, 100)COOK Zenith (n = 1, 50), GORE TAG (n = 1, 50)DHTN (n = 2, 100)
Tsilimparis et al. 2019 [44]16NR Cook Ascend TAA Endovascular Graft (n = 16, 100)IVCO (n = 16, 100)
Ghoreishi et al. 2019 [45]8NRGORE TAG (n = 8, 100)RVP (n = 8, 100)
NR = not reported; VTACH = ventricular tachycardia; RVP = rapid ventricular pacing; SCA = systemic circulatory arrest; IVCO = inferior vena cava occlusion; DHTN = drug-induced hypotension.
Table 4. Cumulative data about complications and conversion to open surgery rates.
Table 4. Cumulative data about complications and conversion to open surgery rates.
AuthorTEVAR Early Complications (n, %)Early Complications (Types) (n, %)Late Complications (n, %)Late Complications (Types) (n, %)Conversion to Open Surgery (n, %)
Hsieh et al. 2019 [26]41 (25)New TAAD (n = 1, 100)2 (50)Endoleak (n = 1, 50)1 (25)
Ronchey et al. 2013 [27]New TAAD (n = 1, 50)
Chen et al. 2019 [28]40 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Gao et al. 2017 [29]40 (0)0 (0)3 (75)New PAU (n = 1, 33.3)0 (0)
Wang et al. 2021 [30]Hematoma progression (n = 1, 33.3)
Mitreski et al. 2022 [31]New TAAD (n = 1, 33.3)
Roselli et al. 2018 [32]70 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Li et al. 2016 [33]90 (0)0 (0)2 (22.2)New TAAD (n = 1, 50)0 (0)
Shu et al. 2012 [34]Endoleak (n = 1, 50)
Yuan et al. 2022 [35]102 (20)Pulmonary hemorrhage (n = 1, 50)0 (0)0 (0)NR
Yan et al. 2019 [36]End-organ ischemia (n = 1, 50)
Wu et al. 2021 [37]146 (42.8)Cardiac tamponade (n = 2, 33.3)4 (28.6)NRNR
Higashigawa et al. 2019 [38]Multi-organ-failure (n = 2, 33.3)
Ye et al. 2011 [39]152 (13.3)Arrhythmia (n = 1, 50)8 (53.3)New TAAD (n = 2, 25)1 (6.7)
Qin et al. 2019 [40]Myocardial Infarction (1, 12.5)
Vallabhajosyula et al. 2015 [41]Arrhythmia (1, 12.5)
Khoynezhad et al. 2016 [42]Tamponade (1, 12.5)
Bernardes at al. 2014 [43]Endoleak (n = 1, 12.5)
Tsilimparis et al. 2019 [44]170 (0)0 (0)1 (5.9)New TAAD (n = 1, 100)0 (0)
Ghoreishi et al. 2019 [45]190 (0)0 (0)1 (5.3)Endoleak (n = 1, 100)1 (5.3)
Hsieh et al. 2019 [26]202 (10)Pneumonia (n = 1, 50)3 (15)Endoleak (n = 3, 100)0 (0)
Ronchey et al. 2013 [27]Stroke (n = 1, 50)
Chen et al. 2019 [28]240 (0)0 (0)1 (4.2)Endoleak (n = 1, 100)0 (0)
Gao et al. 2017 [29]318 (25.8)Abdominal aortic rupture (n = 1, 12.5)9 (29.0)Intimal injury (n = 3, 33.3)5 (16.1)
Wang et al. 2021 [30]Intimal injury (n = 3, 37.5)Abdominal aortic aneurysm (n = 1, 11.1)
Mitreski et al. 2022 [31]Left arm ischemia (n = 1, 12.5)New TAAD (n = 3, 33.3)
Roselli et al. 2018 [32]Type I endoleak (n = 2, 25)Type I endoleak (n = 1, 11.1)
Li et al. 2016 [33] Type II endoleak (n = 1, 12.5)Type II endoleak (n = 1, 11.1)
Shu et al. 2012 [34]454 (8.9)Myocardial infarction (n = 1, 25)14 (31.1)Type I endoleak (n = 9, 75.4)0 (0)
Yuan et al. 2022 [35]Neck hematoma (n = 1, 25)Stroke (n = 3, 21.4)
Yan et al. 2019 [36]Gastrointestinal hemorrhage (n = 1, 25)Pseudoaneurysm (n = 1, 7.1)
Wu et al. 2021 [37]Type I endoleak (n = 1, 25)Type II endoleak (n = 1, 7.1)
Higashigawa et al. 2019 [38]582 (3.4)Cardiac tamponade (n = 1, 50)3 (5.2)Type I endoleak (n = 2, 66.7)0 (0)
Ye et al. 2011 [39]Pneumonia (n = 1, 50)Type II endoleak (n = 1, 33.3)
Qin et al. 2019 [40]21 (50)Aortic valve leaflet entrapment (n = 1, 100)1 (50)Endoleak (n = 1, 100)0 (0)
Vallabhajosyula et al. 2015 [41]21 (50)NR1 (50)New PAU (n = 1, 100)1 (50)
Khoynezhad et al. 2016 [42]21 (50)Endoleak (n = 1, 100)2 (100)Pneumonia (n = 1, 50)2 (100)
Bernardes at al. 2014 [43]Pulmonary Embolism (n = 1, 50)
Tsilimparis et al. 2019 [44]16NRNRNENENR
Ghoreishi et al. 2019 [45]83 (37.5)Cardiac tamponade (n = 1, 33.3)1 (12.5)Aortic regurgitation (n = 1, 100)0 (0)
Multi-organ failure (n = 1, 33.3)
Right common femoral artery dissection (n = 1, 33.3)
Abbreviations: TAAD = Type A aortic dissection; TEVAR = thoracic endovascular aortic repair; PAU = penetrating aortic ulcer; NE = non-extractable data; NR = not reported.
Table 5. Cumulative disease and peri-operative details.
Table 5. Cumulative disease and peri-operative details.
AuthorTEVAR Acute TAAD (n, %)Subacute TAAD (n, %)Chronic TAAD (n, %)Operation Time (SD) (Minutes)Follow-Up Time (SD) (Months)Concomitant Procedures (n)Mean Hospital Stay (SD) (Days)Mean ICU Stay (SD) (Days)
Hsieh et al. 2019 [26]44 (100)0 (0)0 (0)NR11 (NR)1NRNR
Ronchey et al. 2013 [27]44 (100)0 (0)0 (0)128 (NR)15 (NR)1NRNR
Chen et al. 2019 [28]44 (100)0 (0)0 (0)NR12.25 (5.1)0NRNR
Gao et al. 2017 [29]7NRNRNR231.6 (38.4)14.3 (13.4)4NRNR
Wang et al. 2021 [30]9NRNRNR152.22 (17.81)46.5 (4.47)NRNRNR
Mitreski et al. 2022 [31]109 (90)0 (0)1NR36.6 (NR)0NRNR
Roselli et al. 2018 [32]14NRNRNRNRNR0NRNR
Li et al. 2016 [33] 151 (6.7)7 (46.7)7 (46.7)128.6 (26.2)62 (NR)NR9.4 (2.5)3.3 (1)
Shu et al. 2012 [34]172 (11.8)0 (0)15 (88.2)82.1 (16.9)25.7 (17.2)NRNRNR
Yuan et al. 2022 [35]19NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Yan et al. 2019 [36]2020 (100)0 (0)0 (0)208 (NR)16 (NR)NR13 (5)2 (NR)
Wu et al. 2021 [37]2415 (62.5)0 (0)9 (37.5)237.4 (40.6)21.4 (6.9)NR15.5 (7.1)1.8 (1.1)
Higashigawa et al. 2019 [38]3124 (77.4)7 (29.1)0 (0)NR99 (69.0)NRNRNR
Ye et al. 2011 [39]4530 (66.7)0 (0)15 (33.3)NR35.5 (5.4)20NRNR
Qin et al. 2019 [40]5821 (36.2)37 (63.8)0 (0)162 (36)10.6 (5.4)NR10 (2.6)NR
Vallabhajosyula et al. 2015 [41]22 (100)0 (0)0 (0)NRNR0NR10 (NR)
Khoynezhad et al. 2016 [42]21 (50)1 (50)0 (0)NRNR1NRNR
Bernardes at al. 2014 [43]22 (100)0 (0)0 (0)NRNR0NRNR
Tsilimparis et al. 2019 [44]168 (50)0 (0)8 (50)NE11 (NR)10NRNR
Ghoreishi et al. 2019 [45]87 (87.5)0 (0)1 (12.5)NE13 (13)08.6 (NR)NR
NR = not reported; NE = non-extractable, TAAD = Type A aortic dissection; ICU = intensive care unit.
Table 6. Cumulative disease and peri-operative details.
Table 6. Cumulative disease and peri-operative details.
AuthorEarly Complications (n, %)Late Complications (n, %)Endoleak (n, %)Technical Failure (n, %)StrokeReintervention (n, %)Conversion to Open Surgery (n, %)
Hsieh et al. 2019 [26]1 (25%)2 (50)1 (25)1 (25)0 (0)1 (25)1 (25)
Ronchey et al. 2013 [27]0 (0)0 (0)NR0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Chen et al. 2019 [28]0 (0)3 (75)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)2 (50)1 (25)
Gao et al. 2017 [29]0 (0)0 (0)NR0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Wang et al. 2021 [30]0 (0)2 (22.2)1 (11.1)0 (0)0 (0)1 (11.1)0 (0)
Mitreski et al. 2022 [31]2 (20)0 (0)NR0 (0)0 (0)1 (10)NR
Roselli et al. 2018 [32]6 (42.8)4 (28.6)NR0 (0)2 (14.7)NRNR
Li et al. 2016 [33] 2 (13.3)8 (53.3)1 (6.7)0 (0)0 (0)2 (13.1)1 (6.7)
Shu et al. 2012 [34]0 (0)1 (5.9)NR0 (0)0 (0)1 (5.9)0 (0)
Yuan et al. 2022 [35]0 (0)1 (5.3)NR2 (10.5)1 (5.3)1 (5.3)1 (5.3)
Yan et al. 2019 [36]2 (10)3 (15)3 (15)0 (0)1 (5)0 (0)0 (0)
Wu et al. 2021 [37]0 (0)1 (4.2)1 (4.2)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Higashigawa et al. 2019 [38]8 (25.8)9 (29.0)5 (16.1)2 (6.4)0 (0)10 (32.3)4 (12.8)
Ye et al. 2011 [39]4 (8.9)14 (31.1)11 (24.4)1 (2.2)3 (6.7)10 (22.2)0 (0)
Qin et al. 2019 [40]2 (3.4)3 (5.2)3 (5.2)5 (8.6)2 (3.4)0 (0)0 (0)
Vallabhajosyula et al. 2015 [41]1 (50)1 (50)2 (100)0 (0)1 (50)0 (0)0 (0)
Khoynezhad et al. 2016 [42]1 (50)1 (50)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (50)1 (50)
Bernardes at al. 2014 [43]1 (50)2 (100)1 (50)0 (0)0 (0)2 (100)2 (100)
Tsilimparis et al. 2019 [44]NENENRNRNR3 (18.8)NR
Ghoreishi et al. 2019 [45]3 (37.5)1 (12.5)0 (0)NR0 (0)1 (12.5)0 (0)
NR = not reported; NE = non-extractable.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mylonas, K.S.; Zoupas, I.; Tasoudis, P.T.; Vitkos, E.; Stavridis, G.T.; Avgerinos, D.V. Endovascular Treatment of Type A Aortic Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Using Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 7051. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227051

AMA Style

Mylonas KS, Zoupas I, Tasoudis PT, Vitkos E, Stavridis GT, Avgerinos DV. Endovascular Treatment of Type A Aortic Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Using Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(22):7051. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227051

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mylonas, Konstantinos S., Ioannis Zoupas, Panagiotis T. Tasoudis, Evangelos Vitkos, George T. Stavridis, and Dimitrios V. Avgerinos. 2023. "Endovascular Treatment of Type A Aortic Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Using Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 22: 7051. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227051

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop