SynthesisInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2025
Comparison of short-and long-term outcomes between endovascular and open repair for descending thoracic aortic aneurysm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Open Repair of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms in the Endovascular Era: When and for Whom.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Re-examining repair strategies for descending thoracic aortic aneurysm: balancing early benefits and long-term durability.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Endovascular Repair of Thoracic Aortic Atresia in Adults: A Narrative Review of a Rare Entity and Emerging Technique.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Long-term functional recovery and prognostic determinants of spinal cord ischemia post-thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a population-based cohort study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of endovascular versus open repair for the treatment of patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTAA).
methodsA systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies was performed. Outcome data, including postoperative mortality and morbidity, operative details, all-cause survival, freedom from aortic-related survival and freedom from aortic-related re-intervention, were independently extracted by two authors in a standardized way.
resultsTwenty-nine studies comprising 49 972 patients (22 049 endovascular repair; 27 923 open repair) were included. Endovascular repair was associated with a significantly lower postoperative mortality rate [odd ratio (OR): 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.72; I 2 = 72.58%] and morbidity. In terms of long-term survival, endovascular repair yielded better freedom from aortic-related survival [hazard ratio (HR): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.93, P = 0.012] but inferior freedom from aortic-related reintervention (HR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.45-3.04, P < 0.001). Landmark analysis revealed that the open repair group experienced better all-cause survival beyond 16 months (HR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.53-1.75, P < 0.001). In addition, in the subgroup of patients with intact DTAA, those who underwent open repair exhibited a higher rate of postoperative mortality (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.38-0.88; I 2 = 83.34%) but had better all-cause survival beyond 7 months (HR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.61-1.84, P < 0.001) than those who underwent endovascular repair.
conclusionAmong patients treated for DTAA, endovascular repair was associated with better freedom from aortic-related survival, a lower risk for postoperative mortality and morbidity, and shorter lengths of intervention, intensive care unit stay, and hospital stay than those who underwent open repair. Open repair yielded significantly better long-term all-cause survival and freedom from aortic-related re-intervention than endovascular repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.