Blog
About

20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Open versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in the Elective and Emergent Setting in a Pooled Population of 37,781 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      Read this article at

      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. We evaluated the incidence of mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) in endovascular repair (EVAR) as compared to open aneurysm repair (OAR) in both elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA ) setting. Methods. We analyzed the rates of 30-day mortality, 30-day MI, and hospital length of stay (LOS) based on comparative observation and randomized control trials involving EVAR and OAR. Results. 41 trials compared EVAR to OAR with a total pooled population of 37,781 patients. Analysis of elective and ruptured AAA repair favored EVAR with respect to 30-day mortality with a pooled odds ratio of 0.19 (95% CI 0.17–0.20; I 2 = 88.9%; P < 0.001). There were a total of 1,835 30-day MI events reported in the EVAR group as compared to 2,483 events in the OAR group. The pooled odds ratio for elective AAA was 0.74 (95% CI 0.58–0.96; P = 0.02) in favor of EVAR. The average LOS was reduced by 296.75 hrs (95% CI 156.68–436.82 hrs; P < 0.001) in the EVAR population. Conclusions. EVAR has lower rates of 30-day mortality, 30-day MI, and LOS in both elective and ruptured AAA repair.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 60

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

          Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

          Few data are available on the long-term outcome of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm as compared with open repair. From 1999 through 2004 at 37 hospitals in the United Kingdom, we randomly assigned 1252 patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms (> or = 5.5 cm in diameter) to undergo either endovascular or open repair; 626 patients were assigned to each group. Patients were followed for rates of death, graft-related complications, reinterventions, and resource use until the end of 2009. Logistic regression and Cox regression were used to compare outcomes in the two groups. The 30-day operative mortality was 1.8% in the endovascular-repair group and 4.3% in the open-repair group (adjusted odds ratio for endovascular repair as compared with open repair, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.87; P=0.02). The endovascular-repair group had an early benefit with respect to aneurysm-related mortality, but the benefit was lost by the end of the study, at least partially because of fatal endograft ruptures (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.49; P=0.73). By the end of follow-up, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of death from any cause (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.23; P=0.72). The rates of graft-related complications and reinterventions were higher with endovascular repair, and new complications occurred up to 8 years after randomization, contributing to higher overall costs. In this large, randomized trial, endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a significantly lower operative mortality than open surgical repair. However, no differences were seen in total mortality or aneurysm-related mortality in the long term. Endovascular repair was associated with increased rates of graft-related complications and reinterventions and was more costly. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN55703451.) 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A randomized trial comparing conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

            Although the initial results of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms were promising, current evidence from controlled studies does not convincingly show a reduction in 30-day mortality relative to that achieved with open repair. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing open repair with endovascular repair in 345 patients who had received a diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5 cm in diameter and who were considered suitable candidates for both techniques. The outcome events analyzed were operative (30-day) mortality and two composite end points of operative mortality and severe complications and operative mortality and moderate or severe complications. The operative mortality rate was 4.6 percent in the open-repair group (8 of 174 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.0 to 8.9 percent) and 1.2 percent in the endovascular-repair group (2 of 171 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1 to 4.2 percent), resulting in a risk ratio of 3.9 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 32.9). The combined rate of operative mortality and severe complications was 9.8 percent in the open-repair group (17 of 174 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 5.8 to 15.2 percent) and 4.7 percent in the endovascular-repair group (8 of 171 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.0 to 9.0 percent), resulting in a risk ratio of 2.1 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 5.4). On the basis of the overall results of this trial, endovascular repair is preferable to open repair in patients who have an abdominal aortic aneurysm that is at least 5 cm in diameter. Long-term follow-up is needed to determine whether this advantage is sustained. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Outcomes following endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a randomized trial.

              Limited data are available to assess whether endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) improves short-term outcomes compared with traditional open repair. To compare postoperative outcomes up to 2 years after endovascular or open repair of AAA in a planned interim report of a 9-year trial. A randomized, multicenter clinical trial of 881 veterans (aged > or = 49 years) from 42 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers with eligible AAA who were candidates for both elective endovascular repair and open repair of AAA. The trial is ongoing and this report describes the period between October 15, 2002, and October 15, 2008. Elective endovascular (n = 444) or open (n = 437) repair of AAA. Procedure failure, secondary therapeutic procedures, length of stay, quality of life, erectile dysfunction, major morbidity, and mortality. Mean follow-up was 1.8 years. Perioperative mortality (30 days or inpatient) was lower for endovascular repair (0.5% vs 3.0%; P = .004), but there was no significant difference in mortality at 2 years (7.0% vs 9.8%, P = .13). Patients in the endovascular repair group had reduced median procedure time (2.9 vs 3.7 hours), blood loss (200 vs 1000 mL), transfusion requirement (0 vs 1.0 units), duration of mechanical ventilation (3.6 vs 5.0 hours), hospital stay (3 vs 7 days), and intensive care unit stay (1 vs 4 days), but required substantial exposure to fluoroscopy and contrast. There were no differences between the 2 groups in major morbidity, procedure failure, secondary therapeutic procedures, aneurysm-related hospitalizations, health-related quality of life, or erectile function. In this report of short-term outcomes after elective AAA repair, perioperative mortality was low for both procedures and lower for endovascular than open repair. The early advantage of endovascular repair was not offset by increased morbidity or mortality in the first 2 years after repair. Longer-term outcome data are needed to fully assess the relative merits of the 2 procedures. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00094575.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Affiliations
                1Cardiology Service MCHE-MDC, Brooke Army Medical Center, 3551 Roger Brooke Drive, San Antonio, TX 78234-6200, USA
                2Cardiology Service, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD 20889, USA
                3Medicine, USUHS, 3551 Roger Brooke Dr, San Antonio, TX 78234, USA
                Author notes

                Academic Editors: W. S. Aronow and F. Cademartiri

                Journal
                ISRN Cardiol
                ISRN Cardiol
                ISRN.CARDIOLOGY
                ISRN Cardiology
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                2090-5580
                2090-5599
                2014
                2 April 2014
                : 2014
                10.1155/2014/149243
                4004021
                Copyright © 2014 Dustin M. Thomas et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Categories
                Review Article

                Cardiovascular Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article