Key result
In high-risk patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms, EVAR yielded 96.7% 4-year freedom from aneurysm-related death, significantly better than BMT (66.8%, p=0.002) and similar to OR (93.9%).
Why the study?
Does EVAR improve survival and quality of life compared to open repair and best medical therapy in high-risk patients with AAAs suitable for EVAR?
Cohort (n=162)
No
Does EVAR improve survival and quality of life compared to open repair and best medical therapy in high-risk patients with AAAs suitable for EVAR?
Absolute Event Rate: 96.7% vs 66.8%
p-value: p=0.002
In high-risk patients with AAA, EVAR reduces aneurysm-related death compared to medical therapy and offers similar survival to open repair with lower costs and improved quality-adjusted survival.
EVAR may be favored over BMT in high-risk AAA; extends observational data but leaves randomized comparisons to OR open.
PURPOSE: To report the results of a trial comparing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) to open repair (OR) and best medical therapy (BMT) involving high-risk patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) suitable for EVAR. METHODS: From 2002 to 2007, 1083 patients with aortic aneurysm disease were referred to a tertiary care university hospital. Of these, 162 (119 men; mean age 76 years) were high-risk patients with AAAs anatomically suitable for EVAR. Following comprehensive consultation with the patient, the family, and the primary physician, elective treatment was selected: OR (n=52), EVAR (n=66), or BMT (n=44). Outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and a parameter that measured the quality time spent without symptoms of disease or toxicity of treatment (Q-TWIST). RESULTS: Four-year freedom from aneurysm-related death following EVAR (96.7%) was markedly better compared to BMT (66.8%; p=0.002) and was similar to OR (93.9%, p=0.483). Four-year freedom from major adverse clinical events was significantly better with EVAR (78%) compared with BMT (28%; p=0.001) and was equivalent to OR (75%; p=0.519). The 4-year intervention-free survival rate for EVAR (95%) almost matched OR (98%; p=0.410). At 4 years, Q-TWIST was 3.64 years for EVAR patients, 3.60 years for OR, and 2.22 years for BMT. Q-TWIST significantly improved with EVAR compared to OR (p<0.003). In the cost analysis, 52 high-risk patients were treated with OR over the 5-year period (2002-2007) at a total inpatient cost of 1,257,457 euro. The 66 patients treated with EVAR (14 patients more than OR) incurred a lower cost of 1,129,138 euro. Including the cost of follow-up over 4 years, the mean cost per patient was 18,476 euro for EVAR and 24,252 euro for OR, a savings of 5,776 euro per patient treated with EVAR. CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients, EVAR reduces aneurysm-related death compared to BMT. Equated to the gold standard of open repair, EVAR, as a "one-time procedure," substantially reduces operative morbidity, hospital stay, costs, and utilization of intensive care facilities if performed in a high-volume center.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hynes et al. (2007) conducted a cohort in Abdominal aortic aneurysms (n=162). Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) vs. Open repair (OR) and best medical therapy (BMT) was evaluated on Four-year freedom from aneurysm-related death (p=0.002). In high-risk patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms, EVAR yielded 96.7% 4-year freedom from aneurysm-related death, significantly better than BMT (66.8%, p=0.002) and similar to OR (93.9%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: