Open versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

被引:270
|
作者
Lederle, Frank A. [1 ]
Kyriakides, Tassos C. [2 ]
Stroupe, Kevin T. [3 ]
Freischlag, Julie A. [4 ]
Padberg, Frank T., Jr. [5 ]
Matsumura, Jon S. [6 ]
Huo, Zhiping [3 ]
Johnson, Gary R. [2 ]
机构
[1] Vet Affairs VA Med Ctr, Minneapolis, MN USA
[2] VA Hlth Care Syst, West Haven, CT USA
[3] VA Hosp, Hines, IL USA
[4] Wake Forest Baptist Hlth, Winston Salem, NC USA
[5] VA Med Ctr, E Orange, NJ USA
[6] VA Med Ctr, Madison, WI USA
来源
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE | 2019年 / 380卷 / 22期
关键词
EVAR TRIAL 1; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1056/NEJMoa1715955
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
BackgroundElective endovascular repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm results in lower perioperative mortality than traditional open repair, but after 4 years this survival advantage is not seen; in addition, results of two European trials have shown worse long-term outcomes with endovascular repair than with open repair. Long-term results of a study we conducted more than a decade ago to compare endovascular repair with open repair are unknown. MethodsWe randomly assigned patients with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms to either endovascular repair or open repair of the aneurysm. All the patients were candidates for either procedure. Patients were followed for up to 14 years. ResultsA total of 881 patients underwent randomization: 444 were assigned to endovascular repair and 437 to open repair. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. A total of 302 patients (68.0%) in the endovascular-repair group and 306 (70.0%) in the open-repair group died (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.13). During the first 4 years of follow-up, overall survival appeared to be higher with endovascular repair than with open repair; from year 4 through year 8, overall survival was higher in the open-repair group; and after 8 years, overall survival was once again higher in the endovascular-repair group (hazard ratio for death, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.18). None of these trends were significant. There were 12 aneurysm-related deaths (2.7%) in the endovascular-repair group and 16 (3.7%) in the open-repair group (between-group difference, -1.0 percentage point; 95% CI, -3.3 to 1.4); most deaths occurred during the perioperative period. Aneurysm rupture occurred in 7 patients (1.6%) in the endovascular-repair group, and rupture of a thoracic aneurysm occurred in 1 patient (0.2%) in the open-repair group (between-group difference, 1.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 2.6). Death from chronic obstructive lung disease was just over 50% more common with open repair (5.4% of patients in the endovascular-repair group and 8.2% in the open-repair group died from chronic obstructive lung disease; between-group difference, -2.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.2 to 0.5). More patients in the endovascular-repair group underwent secondary procedures. ConclusionsLong-term overall survival was similar among patients who underwent endovascular repair and those who underwent open repair. A difference between groups was noted in the number of patients who underwent secondary therapeutic procedures. Our results were not consistent with the findings of worse performance of endovascular repair with respect to long-term survival that was seen in the two European trials. (Funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs Office of Research and Development; OVER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00094575.) A randomized, multicenter trial that compared endovascular repair with open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm showed no significant difference between these approaches in overall survival after 8 years.
引用
收藏
页码:2126 / 2135
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Abdominal aortic aneurysm - Open versus endovascular repair
    Lederle, FA
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2004, 351 (16): : 1677 - 1679
  • [2] Endovascular versus Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
    Greenhalgh, Roger M.
    Brown, Louise C.
    Powell, Janet T.
    Thompson, Simon G.
    Epstein, David
    Sculpher, Mark J.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2010, 362 (20): : 1863 - 1871
  • [3] Open versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
    Ramkumar, Niveditta
    Goodney, Philip P.
    Cronenwett, Jack L.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2019, 381 (11):
  • [4] Endovascular versus open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm
    McHugh, S. M.
    Aherne, T.
    Goetz, T.
    Byrne, J.
    Boyle, E.
    Allen, M.
    Leahy, A.
    Moneley, D.
    Naughton, P.
    [J]. SURGEON-JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL COLLEGES OF SURGEONS OF EDINBURGH AND IRELAND, 2016, 14 (05): : 274 - 277
  • [5] Endovascular Versus Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
    Nedeau, April E.
    Pomposelli, Frank B.
    Hamdan, Allen
    Wyers, Mark C.
    Hsu, Richard
    Sachs, Teviah
    Siracuse, Jeffrey J.
    Schermerhorn, Marc
    [J]. JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2010, 52 (04) : 1116 - 1116
  • [6] Endovascular and Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
    Schmitz-Rixen, Thomas
    Boeckler, Dittmar
    Vogl, Thomas J.
    Grundmann, Reinhart T.
    [J]. DEUTSCHES ARZTEBLATT INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 117 (48): : 813 - 819
  • [7] Costs of open versus endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair - Reply
    Dryjski, M
    O'Brien, M
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2004, 198 (02) : 329 - 330
  • [8] Open versus endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in Medicare beneficiaries
    Deery, Sarah E.
    Schermerhorn, Marc L.
    [J]. SURGERY, 2017, 162 (04) : 721 - 731
  • [9] Open versus endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in VA hospitals
    Bush, RL
    Johnson, ML
    Collins, TC
    Henderson, WG
    Khuri, SF
    Yu, HJ
    Lin, PH
    Lumsden, AB
    Ashton, CM
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2006, 202 (04) : 577 - 587
  • [10] Safety and Efficiency of Endovascular Treatment of Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
    Asghar, Umair
    Qadir, Abdul
    Hanif, Ayesha
    Waheed, Iqra
    Malik, Zeeshan
    [J]. PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL & HEALTH SCIENCES, 2016, 10 (04): : 1143 - 1146