Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36186963›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

Comparison of techniques for left subclavian artery preservation during thoracic endovascular aortic repair: A systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of both endovascular and surgical revascularization.

Yuchong Zhang, Xinsheng Xie, Ye Yuan, Chengkai Hu, Enci Wang, Yufei Zhao, Peng Lin, Zheyun Li, Fandi Mo, Weiguo Fu and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Yuchong ZhangDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China.
Xinsheng XieDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China.
Ye YuanDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China.
Chengkai HuDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China.
Enci WangDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China.
Yufei ZhaoDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China.
Peng LinDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China.
Zheyun LiDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China.
Fandi MoDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China.
Weiguo FuDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China.
Lixin WangDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Currently, the optimal technique to revascularize the left subclavian artery (LSA) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) remains controversial. Our study seeks to characterize early and late clinical results and to assess the advantages and disadvantages of endovascular vs. surgical strategies for the preservation of LSA. Methods: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library searches were conducted under the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses) standards. Only literature published after January 1994 was included. Studies reporting on endovascular revascularization (ER), surgical revascularization (SR) for LSA preservation were included. 30-day mortality and morbidity rates, restenosis rates, and rates of early and late reintervention are measured as outcomes. Results: A total of 28 studies involving 2,759 patients were reviewed. All articles were retrospective in design. Single-arm analysis found no significant statistical differences in ER vs. SR in terms of 30-day mortality and perioperative complication rates. The mean follow-up time for the ER cohort was 12.9 months and for the SR cohort was 26.6 months, respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed a higher risk of perioperative stroke (4.2%) and endoleaks (14.2%) with the chimney technique compared to the fenestrated and single-branched stent approaches. Analysis of the double-arm studies did not yield statistically significant results. Conclusion: Both ER and SR are safe and feasible in the preservation of LSA while achieving an adequate proximal landing zone. Among ER strategies, the chimney technique may presents a greater risk of neurological complications and endoleaks, while the single-branched stent grafts demonstrate the lowest complication rate, and the fenestration method for revascularization lies in an intermediate position. Given that the data quality of the included studies were relatively not satisfactory, more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to provide convincing evidence for optimal approaches to LSA revascularization in the future.

Indexed as

endoleakleft subclavian arterymeta-analysisrevascularizationthoracic endovascular aortic repair

Identifiers

PMID36186963
PMCPMC9520576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.