Advanced age is significantly associated with poor outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether advanced age is a risk factor for poor outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the association between advanced age and outcomes after TEVAR. METHODS: To identify studies regarding TEVAR and age, the PubMed and Web of Science databases were systematically searched in July 2023. The associations between advanced age and outcomes of TEVAR for individuals with any types of thoracic aortic diseases were assessed according to the odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR). The ages of patients who suffered from adverse events after TEVAR were also compared. Study quality was assessed by using the Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: A total of 70 studies with 52,605 patients were included in this meta-analysis. All enrolled studies were considered high-quality. Overall, advanced age was significantly associated with higher risk of postoperative mortality (p < 0.0001) and neurological complications (p = 0.006), especially delirium (p = 0.009), spinal cord ischemia (p = 0.02) and overall neurological complications (p = 0.007). Notably, the age of patients experiencing postoperative stroke was slightly older than those did not (p = 0.05). However, advanced age was not significantly associated with an elevated risk of postoperative overall complications (p = 0.59) or adverse aortic remodeling events (p = 0.34), including aortic dilation (p = 0.43) or false lumen dilation (p = 0.52). Moreover, patients who experienced acute kidney injury after TEVAR were significantly younger than those who did not (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Advanced age is associated with poor outcomes of TEVAR, including postoperative mortality and neurological complications, though overall complications and aortic remodeling outcomes are similar. Additionally, AKI was even more frequent in younger patients. It is important to evaluate risk and benefit before deciding to perform TEVAR on older patients. Optimized peri-operative management should be developed and provided for older patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".