腹主动脉瘤(AAA)是危及生命的严重疾病,需要有效和快速的治疗。尽管人们普遍认为,与开放手术修复(OSR)相比,AAA患者从血管内修复(EVAR)中获得最大的益处,西方和中国患者的手术方法之间的比较很少。我们旨在对EVAR与OSR在腹主动脉瘤治疗中进行比较的研究进行荟萃分析。我们通过PubMed搜索了西方文献,1991年至2018年12月的OVID和WebofScience以及1998年至2018年12月的中文文献。我们根据标准化的纳入和排除标准汇总了2019年1月的结果,并使用常规荟萃分析进行了分析。本研究包括45篇英文论文,其中31,074例AAA患者和21篇中国研究,其中1,405例患者。中国受试者比西方受试者更有可能接受血管内修复(44.5%对41.5%,P=0.012)。在西方研究中,EVAR的出院后30天死亡率明显低于OSR(比值比(OR)=0.481,P<0.001)。然而,对于中国患者,与OSR相比,EVAR术后30天死亡率没有显著降低(OR=0.733,P=0.425).在西方患者中,EVAR组术后呼吸系统和心脏系统并发症发生率低于OSR组(OR=0.270,P<0.001,OR=0.411,P<0.001),然而,对于中国患者来说,EVAR组肢体缺血更为常见(OR=1.539,P=0.049)。无论是在西方患者的8年随访期或中国患者的最长4年随访期,EVAR组和OSR组的全因死亡率差异无统计学意义(风险比(HR)=1.026,P=0.483,HR=1.173,P=0.247)。中国患者比OSR更有可能接受EVAR,并且在西方患者中,EVAR的30天死亡率明显低于OSR,但在中国患者中没有。腔内修复术可应用于中国患者,具有合理的安全裕度。需要进一步的工作来探索这些治疗差异的原因。
Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) are life-threatening serious conditions that require effective and quick management. Although it is generally acknowledged that patients with AAA obtain the greatest benefit from endovascular repair (EVAR) compared to open surgical repair (OSR), there are few comparisons between the surgical approaches in Western versus Chinese patients. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of studies in which EVAR was compared with OSR in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms. We searched the Western literature through PubMed, OVID and Web of Science from 1991 until December 2018 and the Chinese-language literature from 1998 until December 2018. We pooled the results in January 2019 based on standardized inclusion and exclusion criteria and analyzed them using a conventional meta-analysis. Forty-five English papers with 31,074 AAA patients and twenty-one Chinese studies with 1,405 patients were included in this study. Chinese subjects were more likely to undergo endovascular repair than Western subjects (44.5% versus 41.5%, P = 0.012). The 30-day post-discharge mortality rate in Western studies was significantly lower for EVAR than for OSR (odds ratio (OR) = 0.481, P < 0.001). However, there was no significant reduction in the 30-day mortality rate following EVAR compared to OSR (OR = 0.733, P = 0.425) for Chinese patients. In Western patients, the postoperative complication rate of respiratory system and cardiac system was lower in the EVAR group than in the OSR group (OR = 0.270, P < 0.001 and OR = 0.411, P < 0.001, respectively), nevertheless, for Chinese patients, limb ischaemia was more common (OR = 1.539, P = 0.049) in the EVAR group. Whether in Western patients with an eight-year follow-up period or Chinese patients with a maximum four-year follow-up period, there was no significant difference between the EVAR and OSR groups in the all-cause death rate (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.026, P = 0.483 and HR = 1.173, P = 0.247, respectively). Chinese patients were more likely to receive EVAR than OSR and the 30-day mortality was significantly lower for EVAR than for OSR in Western patients but not in Chinese patients. Endovascular repair can be applied to Chinese patients with a reasonable safety margin. Further work is needed to explore the causes of these treatment differences.