Percutaneous Versus Surgical Cutdown in the Treatment of Endovascular Aortic Repair: a Meta-analysis

Liu Kui,Yang Chao,Li Qin,Wang Weici,Dang Yiping,Li Yiqing
2017-01-01
Abstract:Objective This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy of total percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR) with Perclose ProGlide devices compared with endovascular aortic repair with femoral surgical cutdown (SEVAR).Methods Pubmed,Cochrane,CBMdisc,CNKI,VIP,and Wangfang Med Online were searched from 1 January 1999 to 1 June 2016 to identify all studies providing comparative outcomes of Preclose Technology with Perclose ProGlide devices for the percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.Hospital length of stay,operation time,postoperative hospital length of stay,success rate and access-related complications were defined as primary outcome parameters.Combined overall outcomes were calculated using fixed and randomized effects models by Review Manager 5.3.We conducted a meta-analysis using endovascular aortic repair with femoral surgical cutdown as control group.Result Twenty one studies including 2 randomized controlled trials,4 prospective studies and 15 retrospective studies were identified.Percutaneous access was associated with a shorter hospital stay (SMD=-0.44,95%CI [-0.58,-0.29],P<0.000 01),operation time (SMD=-0.53,95%CI [-0.72,-0.33],P<0.000 01),postoperative hospital stay (SMD=-0.36,95%CI [-0.62,-0.10],P=0.006),and lower frequency of total complications (OR=0.58,95%CI [0.44,0.75],P<0.000 1) and reoperation due to the complications (OR=1.36,95%CI [0.73,2.54],P=0.34).Conclusion Percutaneous access with Preclose technology demonstrates advantages over conventional femoral surgical cutdown for endovascular aortic repair,as indicated by improved time efficiency and access-related complications.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?