Blog
About

16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Endovascular vs. Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Patients presenting with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms are most often treated with open repair despite the fact that endovascular aneurysm repair is a less invasive and widely accepted method with clear benefits for elective aortic aneurysm patients. A debate exists regarding the definitive benefit in endovascular repair for patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. The aim of this literature review was to determine if any trends exist in favor of either open or endovascular repair.

          Material/Methods

          A literature search was performed using PUBMED, OVID, and Google Scholar databases. The search yielded 64 publications.

          Results

          Out of 64 publications, 25 were retrospective studies, 12 were population-based, 21 were prospective, 5 were the results of RCTs, and 1 was a case-series. Sixty-one studies reported on early mortality and provided data comparing endovascular repair (rEVAR) and open repair (rOR) for ruptured abdominal aneurysm groups. Twenty-nine of these studies reported that rEVAR has a lower early mortality rate. Late mortality after rEVAR compared to that of rOR was reported in 21 studies for a period of 3 to 60 months. Results of 61.9% of the studies found no difference in late mortality rates between these 2 groups. Thirty-nine publications reported on the incidence of complications. Approximately half of these publications support that the rEVAR group has a lower complication rate and the other half found no difference between the groups. Length of hospital stay has been reported to be shorter for rEVAR in most studies. Blood loss and need for transfusion of either red cells or fresh frozen plasma was consistently lower in the rEVAR group.

          Conclusions

          Differences between the included publications affect the outcomes. Randomized control trials have not been able to provide clear conclusions. rEVAR can now be considered a safe method of treating rAAA, and is at least equal to the well-established rOR method.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 88

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Endovascular repair versus open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

           Ron Balm,  J. Reekers,   (2013)
          Randomized comparison of endovascular repair (EVAR) with open repair (OR) in patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). Despite advances in operative technique and perioperative management RAAA remains fraught with a high rate of death and complications. Outcome may improve with a minimally invasive surgical technique: EVAR. All patients with a RAAA in the larger Amsterdam area were identified. Logistics for RAAA patients was changed with centralization of care in 3 trial centers. Patients both fit for EVAR and for OR were randomized to either of the treatments. Nonrandomized patients were followed in a prospective cohort. Primary endpoint of the study was the composite of death and severe complications at 30 days. Between April 2004 and February 2011, we identified 520 patients with a RAAA of which 116 could be randomized. The primary endpoint rate for EVAR was 42% and for OR was 47% [absolute risk reduction (ARR) = 5.4%; 95% confidence interval (CI): -13% to +23%]. The 30-day mortality was 21% in patients assigned to EVAR compared with 25% for OR (ARR = 4.4% 95% CI: -11% to +20%). The mortality of all surgically treated patients in the nonrandomized cohort was 30% (95% CI: 26%-35%) and 26% (95% CI: 20% to 32%) in patients with unfavorable anatomy for EVAR, treated by OR at trial centers. This trial did not show a significant difference in combined death and severe complications between EVAR and OR. Mortality for OR both in randomized patients and in cohort patients was lower than anticipated, which may be explained by optimization of logistics, preoperative CT imaging, and centralization of care in centers of expertise.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mortality from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: clinical lessons from a comparison of outcomes in England and the USA.

            The outcome of patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) varies by country. Study of practice differences might allow the formulation of pathways to improve care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Endovascular strategy or open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: one-year outcomes from the IMPROVE randomized trial

              Aims To report the longer term outcomes following either a strategy of endovascular repair first or open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, which are necessary for both patient and clinical decision-making. Methods and results This pragmatic multicentre (29 UK and 1 Canada) trial randomized 613 patients with a clinical diagnosis of ruptured aneurysm; 316 to an endovascular first strategy (if aortic morphology is suitable, open repair if not) and 297 to open repair. The principal 1-year outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes were re-interventions, hospital discharge, health-related quality-of-life (QoL) (EQ-5D), costs, Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness [incremental net benefit (INB)]. At 1 year, all-cause mortality was 41.1% for the endovascular strategy group and 45.1% for the open repair group, odds ratio 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62, 1.17], P = 0.325, with similar re-intervention rates in each group. The endovascular strategy group and open repair groups had average total hospital stays of 17 and 26 days, respectively, P < 0.001. Patients surviving rupture had higher average EQ-5D utility scores in the endovascular strategy vs. open repair groups, mean differences 0.087 (95% CI 0.017, 0.158), 0.068 (95% CI −0.004, 0.140) at 3 and 12 months, respectively. There were indications that QALYs were higher and costs lower for the endovascular first strategy, combining to give an INB of £3877 (95% CI £253, £7408) or €4356 (95% CI €284, €8323). Conclusion An endovascular first strategy for management of ruptured aneurysms does not offer a survival benefit over 1 year but offers patients faster discharge with better QoL and is cost-effective. Clinical trial registration ISRCTN 48334791.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Med Sci Monit Basic Res
                Med Sci Monit Basic Res
                Medical Science Monitor Basic Research
                Medical Science Monitor Basic Research
                International Scientific Literature, Inc.
                2325-4394
                2325-4416
                2016
                19 April 2016
                : 22
                : 34-44
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Vascular Unit, First Department of Surgery, Laiko General Hospital, Medical School, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
                [2 ]Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, U.S.A.
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Nikolaos Patelis, e-mail: patelisn@ 123456gmail.com
                [A]

                Study Design

                [B]

                Data Collection

                [C]

                Statistical Analysis

                [D]

                Data Interpretation

                [E]

                Manuscript Preparation

                [F]

                Literature Search

                [G]

                Funds Collection

                Article
                897601
                10.12659/MSMBR.897601
                4847558
                27090791
                © Med Sci Monit, 2016

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License

                Categories
                Review Articles

                Comments

                Comment on this article