Key result
A systematic review of 5 cardiovascular society guidelines found significant agreement regarding the management of thoracic aortic diseases, establishing TEVAR as the treatment of choice.
Why the study?
Broad expansion of TEVAR raised considerations regarding its indications, appropriateness, limitations, and application, prompting an assessment of similarities and differences among current cardiovascular societies' guidelines.
What are the similarities and differences among current cardiovascular societies' guidelines for the management of thoracic aortic diseases?
Systematic Review (n=5)
What are the similarities and differences among current cardiovascular societies' guidelines for the management of thoracic aortic diseases?
This systematic review highlights significant agreement among major cardiovascular society guidelines on managing thoracic aortic diseases, particularly establishing TEVAR as the treatment of choice for dissection and aneurysms.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
TEVAR should be prioritized for thoracic aortic dissection and aneurysms; confirms alignment among major society guidelines.
Cardiovascular societies have developed recommendations regarding the management of thoracic aortic diseases. While improvements in treatment have been observed during the past decade in regard to patient selection, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and associated techniques, and high-volume centralization, the broad expansion of TEVAR has raised considerations about its indications, appropriateness, limitations, and application. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the similarities and differences among current cardiovascular societies' guidelines for the management of thoracic aortic diseases. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 2009 to May 2020. The initial search identified 990 articles. After exclusion of duplicate or inappropriate articles, the final analysis included 5 articles from cardiovascular societies published between 2010 and 2020. Selected controversial topics were analyzed, including diagnosis, imaging, spinal cord ischemia prevention, and management of the most important thoracic aortic pathologies. The analysis included data concerning the therapeutic approach in acute and chronic type B aortic dissection, penetrating aortic ulcer, intramural hematoma, thoracic aortic aneurysm, and traumatic aortic injury, as well a discussion of inflammatory aneurysms, aortitis, and genetic syndromes. The review presents consistent and controversial recommendations, as well as "gray zone" issues that need further investigation. There was significant overlap and agreement among the 5 societies regarding the management of thoracic aortic diseases. Especially in dissection and aneurysm management, TEVAR has established its role as the treatment of choice. However, robust evidence is still needed in many aspects of the management of thoracic aortic pathologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Σπανός et al. (2021) conducted a systematic review in Thoracic aortic diseases (n=5). Cardiovascular guidelines was evaluated on Similarities and differences among current cardiovascular societies' guidelines. A systematic review of 5 cardiovascular society guidelines found significant agreement regarding the management of thoracic aortic diseases, establishing TEVAR as the treatment of choice.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: