Why the study?
Comparison of long-term efficacy and late-onset adverse events between endovascular repair and open surgical repair for unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms remained largely elusive.
Does endovascular repair improve short and long-term mortality compared to open surgical repair in patients with unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms?
Does endovascular repair improve short and long-term mortality compared to open surgical repair in patients with unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms?
EVAR provides an initial perioperative survival advantage over OSR for unruptured AAAs, but this benefit does not persist beyond two years, and EVAR is associated with higher long-term risks of rupture and reintervention.
EVAR's perioperative survival benefit supports its use in higher-risk unruptured AAA patients; confirms long-term all-cause mortality equivalence to OSR.
Background Although the initial results of endovascular repair (EVAR) were promising, a comparison of its long-term efficacy against open surgical repair (OSR) remains largely elusive, and late-onset adverse events have not been systematically evaluated. Since OSR and EVAR are currently the only treatment options available in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), the main question arising in clinical practice is whether EVAR or OSR confers more favourable short and long-term outcomes for patients presenting with unruptured AAAs. Aims The present meta-analysis aims to draw a head-to-head comparison between EVAR and OSR and facilitate the formulation of an evidence-based approach to the clinical management of unruptured AAAs. Methods A systematic review was conducted using three databases to identify all relevant studies with comparative data on EVAR vs. OSR. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. Procedural outcomes, such as stroke, myocardial infarction, renal complications, rupture, and reintervention rates, were determined as secondary outcomes. Results Sixteen studies were included for comparative analysis, including four randomised-controlled trials and six non-randomised comparative clinical trials. EVAR conferred a clear perioperative survival advantage as compared to OSR (P < 0.00001). However, this survival advantage did not persist beyond two years post-procedure; all-cause mortality rates were comparable between the two treatment groups at two years (P = 0.09), four years (P = 0.58), and six years (P = 0.88) post-procedure. Although no statistically significant differences in aneurysm-related mortality, postoperative stroke, or myocardial infarction were identified, the OSR group had a statistically significant higher rate of postoperative renal complications. On the other hand, there was a statistically significant higher rate of rupture and reintervention following EVAR. Conclusion Whether the initial survival advantage afforded by EVAR is sufficient to justify the long-term risk of rupture, reintervention, and long-term mortality should be determined on a case-by-case basis by the multidisciplinary team overseeing the clinical care of the patient. Currently, it is reasonable to conclude that EVAR is as efficacious as OSR, but it would be invalid to claim it as superior. Ultimately, longer follow-up data must be presented before any definitive conclusions can be established for this potentially revolutionary technique. Presently, one can neither advocate nor refute EVAR over OSR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alothman et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: