Endovascular versus conventional medical treatment for uncomplicated chronic type B aortic dissection.

Clicks: 390
ID: 69562
2012
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #19 of 97 articles by views in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Aortic dissection is a potentially life-threatening condition that occurs when a tear forms in the inner lining of the aorta. It has traditionally been treated by blood pressure control (medical treatment) or open surgery, both with high mortality rates. More recently stent-graft repair has been suggested as an alternative.To identify the best management for uncomplicated (without rupture of the organs or malperfusion of the extremities) subacute or chronic type B aortic dissection.The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched their Specialised Register (last searched May 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 4). Clinical trials databases were searched for ongoing or unpublished studies.All randomised controlled trials designed to compare the outcome of uncomplicated (without rupture of the organs or malperfusion of the extremities) chronic (occurring more than two weeks previously) type B aortic dissection when treated by stenting adjunctive to best medical treatment versus best medical treatment alone were included.Data on all cause and aorta-related mortality at two years was collected and analysed. In addition, secondary outcome measures were analysed, including morbidity, complications (additional endovascular or open surgery for rupture, expansion or malperfusion) and quality of life.A single trial was identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria (INSTEAD trial). The two-year all cause survival was not statistically significantly different between study groups (95.6% ± 2.5% in the optimised medical therapy (OMT) group and 88.9% ± 3.7% in the thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) + OMT group; log rank test P = 0.15).Overall, the data at two years were insufficient to make any practice recommendations. However, the data on the anatomic remodeling of dissected aortas observed after TEVAR + OMT is encouraging and future studies should follow up cases for at least five years to see if early endovascular interventions, even in stable initially uncomplicated type B patients, are of long-term benefit.
Reference Key
ulug2012endovascularthe Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Ulug, Pinar;McCaslin, James E;Stansby, Gerard;Powell, Janet T;
Journal The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
Year 2012
DOI
10.1002/14651858.CD006512.pub2
URL
Keywords
hemodynamics clinical trial aorta heart ventricles

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.