Dataset Information

Individual-patient meta-analysis of three randomized trials comparing endovascular versus open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The benefits of endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm remain controversial, without any strong evidence about advantages in specific subgroups.

Methods

An individual-patient data meta-analysis of three recent randomized trials of endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm was conducted according to a prespecified analysis plan, reporting on results to 90 days after the index event.

Results

The trials included a total of 836 patients. The mortality rate across the three trials was 31.3 per cent for patients randomized to endovascular repair/strategy and 34.0 per cent for those randomized to open repair at 30 days (pooled odds ratio 0.88, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.18), and 34.3 and 38.0 per cent respectively at 90 days (pooled odds ratio 0.85, 0.64 to 1.13). There was no evidence of significant heterogeneity in the odds ratios between trials. Mean(s.d.) aneurysm diameter was 8.2(1.9) cm and the overall in-hospital mortality rate was 34.8 per cent. There was no significant effect modification with age or Hardman index, but there was indication of an early benefit from an endovascular strategy for women. Discharge from the primary hospital was faster after endovascular repair (hazard ratio 1.24, 95 per cent c.i. 1.04 to 1.47). For open repair, 30-day mortality diminished with increasing aneurysm neck length (adjusted odds ratio 0.69 (95 per cent c.i. 0.53 to 0.89) per 15 mm), but aortic diameter was not associated with mortality for either type of repair.

Conclusion

Survival to 90 days following an endovascular or open repair strategy is similar for all patients and for the restricted population anatomically suitable for endovascular repair. Women may benefit more from an endovascular strategy than men and patients are, on average, discharged sooner after endovascular repair.

SUBMITTER: Sweeting MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4744980 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe PEVAR Trial demonstrated that compared to open femoral exposure, elective percutaneous endovascular AAA repair (ePEVAR) is associated with decreased perioperative morbidity and access site complications. We hypothesized that PEVAR for ruptured AAA (rPEVAR) may also improve perioperative morbidity compared to open femoral exposure (rEVAR). There are currently no reports that evaluate the utility and outcomes of rPEVAR.Materials and methodsFrom 2015 to 2021, all patients who underwent an endovascular repair of a ruptured AAA at a single institution were included in the study and grouped into rPEVAR and rEVAR. Demographics, procedural details (successful preclose technique, conversion to femoral cutdown), postoperative variables (blood transfusion, ICU and hospital length of stay) and short-term outcomes (30-day major adverse events (30-day MAE) and 30-day femoral access-site complications (30-day FAAC)) were collected and compared with 50 historical ePEVAR patients from the PEVAR Trial. Statistical significance was determined using χ 2 or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, and Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables.Results35 patients were identified (21 rPEVAR; 14 rEVAR), 86% were male with a mean age of 72 ± 9 years. All patients underwent emergent endovascular aortic repair with 100% technical success. Seventeen patients (49%) presented with evidence of hemorrhagic shock and 22 patients (63%) had blood transfusion. 30-day MAE occurred in 12 patients (34%) (7 rPEVAR; 5 rEVAR). There was no difference in demographic, perioperative outcomes and 30-day MAE rate between rPEVAR and rEVAR patients. Compared to ePEVAR patient (from PEVAR trial), rPEVAR patients had higher rate of 30-day MAE (34% vs. 6%; p < 0.006) but no difference in 30-day FAAC (19% vs. 12%; p = 0.54). The success rate of the preclose technique was higher in ePEVAR compared to rPEVAR (96% vs. 76%; p = 0.02), but the rate of conversion to femoral cutdown was similar between the two groups (10% vs. 4%; p = 0.57).ConclusionEmergent rPEVAR appears to have similar outcomes when compared to rEVAR. Although patients undergoing rPEVAR have higher 30-day major adverse events rate compared to ePEVAR, the method of percutaneous femoral cannulation does not appear to increase the overall procedural or 30-day femoral artery access-site complications.

Project description:BackgroundThe erosion of the early mortality advantage of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm remains without a satisfactory explanation.MethodsAn individual-patient data meta-analysis of four multicentre randomized trials of EVAR versus open repair was conducted to a prespecified analysis plan, reporting on mortality, aneurysm-related mortality and reintervention.ResultsThe analysis included 2783 patients, with 14 245 person-years of follow-up (median 5·5 years). Early (0-6 months after randomization) mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (46 of 1393 versus 73 of 1390 deaths; pooled hazard ratio 0·61, 95 per cent c.i. 0·42 to 0·89; P = 0·010), primarily because 30-day operative mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (16 deaths versus 40 for open repair; pooled odds ratio 0·40, 95 per cent c.i. 0·22 to 0·74). Later (within 3 years) the survival curves converged, remaining converged to 8 years. Beyond 3 years, aneurysm-related mortality was significantly higher in the EVAR groups (19 deaths versus 3 for open repair; pooled hazard ratio 5·16, 1·49 to 17·89; P = 0·010). Patients with moderate renal dysfunction or previous coronary artery disease had no early survival advantage under EVAR. Those with peripheral artery disease had lower mortality under open repair (39 deaths versus 62 for EVAR; P = 0·022) in the period from 6 months to 4 years after randomization.ConclusionThe early survival advantage in the EVAR group, and its subsequent erosion, were confirmed. Over 5 years, patients of marginal fitness had no early survival advantage from EVAR compared with open repair. Aneurysm-related mortality and patients with low ankle : brachial pressure index contributed to the erosion of the early survival advantage for the EVAR group. Trial registration numbers: EVAR-1, ISRCTN55703451; DREAM (Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management), NCT00421330; ACE (Anévrysme de l'aorte abdominale, Chirurgie versus Endoprothèse), NCT00224718; OVER (Open Versus Endovascular Repair Trial for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms), NCT00094575.