Key result
Endovascular aneurysm repair was associated with higher overall mortality during follow-up compared to open surgical repair (24.1% vs 8.1%; OR 3.62; 95% CI 3.60-3.64; P=0.004).
Why the study?
The study was conducted to evaluate potential variability in clinical characteristics and treatment among patients undergoing elective surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm across five hospitals in Spain.
Does EVAR compared to OSR affect mortality in patients undergoing elective surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm?
Cohort (n=186)
Yes
Does EVAR compared to OSR affect mortality in patients undergoing elective surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm?
Odds Ratio: 3.62 (95% CI 3.6–3.64)
Absolute Event Rate: 24.1% vs 8.1%
p-value: p=0.004
In patients undergoing elective AAA repair, EVAR was associated with similar in-hospital mortality but a three-fold higher overall mortality during a 3-year follow-up compared to open surgical repair.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess potential variability in the clinical characteristics and treatment of patients undergoing elective surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) across five hospitals in Spain. METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with AAA and treated with open surgical repair (OSR) or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). We evaluated clinical and demographic variables, including comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]); anatomic characteristics; surgical risk (ASA Score); aneurysm characteristics; and in-hospital and overall mortality. All patients were followed for three years. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients were included, mean age 72.5 (standard deviation [SD], 8.4), mean CCI 2.04 (SD, 1.9). The surgical technique was EVAR in 46.8% of cases (N.=87) and OSR in 53.2% (N.=99). The in-hospital mortality rate was 2.2%, with no differences between groups. The overall mortality rate during follow-up (mean, 2.9 years) was 24.1% for EVAR versus 8.1% for the OSR group (odds ratio [OR], 3.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.60-3.64; P=0.004). EVAR was the only independent risk factor for mortality (OR, 3.89; 95% CI: 3.87-3.92; P=0.004). Inter-center variability in the type of surgery was high, with EVAR accounting for 19.4% to 75% of the surgical procedures, depending on the treating center (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study the in-hospital mortality rates for elective EVAR and OSR were similar. However, after the follow-up, patients who underwent EVAR had a three-fold greater mortality rate than those treated with OSR. There was substantial inter-hospital variability, underscoring the need to standardize treatment selection in patients who undergo elective surgery for AAA repair.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bonfill et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) (n=186). Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) vs. Open surgical repair (OSR) was evaluated on overall mortality rate during follow-up (OR 3.62, 95% CI 3.60-3.64, p=0.004). Endovascular aneurysm repair was associated with higher overall mortality during follow-up compared to open surgical repair (24.1% vs 8.1%; OR 3.62; 95% CI 3.60-3.64; P=0.004).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: