LAUSR

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare perioperative and mortality outcomes of endovascular aortic repair against open repair in acute type B thoracic aortic dissection. METHODS A comprehensive search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all published data comparing open vs endovascular repair in management of acute type B aortic dissection. Databases where evaluated and assessed to July 2017. The 95% confidence intervals were analyzed from the extracted data using relevant statistical methods. RESULTS Overall, 18,193 patients were found in a combination of nine studies. Patients undergoing open repair were younger (mean, 61.3 ± 9.3 years vs 66.6 ± 12.5 years; P < .00001). Postoperative stroke and paraplegia were similar in both groups (P = .71 and P = .81 respectively); however, the rate of all neurologic complications were more common in the traditional open repair group (6.9% vs 4.8%; P = .006). The all-cause operative and 1-year death was reported as higher in the open repair group (18.6% vs 7.4% [P < .0001] and 24.3% vs 14.3% [P < .0001], respectively); however, at 5 years this rate is almost similar between both groups (46.7% vs 49.7%; P = .21). At 1 year, the rate of reintervention was reported to be higher in endovascular repair group of patients (15.4% vs 5.5%; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS This study concludes that endovascular repair, in the setting of acute type B thoracic aortic dissection, provides an early surgical benefit; however, this finding has not yet been supported by long-term data. There seems to be a benefit with respect to all-neurologic events in favor of endovascular repair. Long-term comparative data and studies are required to give a better understanding of these two approaches.