Key result
Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm resulted in similar 6-year survival compared to open repair (68.9% vs 69.9%; P=0.97), but required significantly more secondary interventions.
Why the study?
Does endovascular repair reduce rates of death from any cause and reintervention compared to open repair in patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5 cm in diameter?
Population
351 patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5 cm in diameter who were considered suitable…
Comparison
Endovascular repair vs Open repair
Design
RCT, Randomly assigned
Follow-up
6 years
Authors
Loading...
Endovascular repair matches open-repair survival at 6 years yet increases reinterventions; confirms durability trade-off guiding shared decision-making in large abdominal aortic aneurysms.
RCT (n=351)
Yes
Does endovascular repair reduce rates of death from any cause and reintervention compared to open repair in patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5 cm in diameter?
Effect estimate: Difference 1.0 percentage point (95% CI -8.8 to 10.8)
Absolute Event Rate: 68.9% vs 69.9%
p-value: p=0.97
At 6 years of follow-up, endovascular repair of large abdominal aortic aneurysms offers similar survival to open repair but is associated with a significantly higher rate of secondary interventions.
Bruin et al. (2010) conducted an RCT in Abdominal aortic aneurysm (n=351). Endovascular repair vs. Open repair was evaluated on Cumulative survival rate (death from any cause) (Difference 1.0 percentage point, 95% CI -8.8 to 10.8, p=0.97). Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm resulted in similar 6-year survival compared to open repair (68.9% vs 69.9%; P=0.97), but required significantly more secondary interventions.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: