Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Li, Ben, BHSc
• Khan, Shawn, BHSc
• Salata, Konrad, MD
• Hussain, Mohamad A., MD, PhD
• de Mestral, Charles, MD, PhD
• Greco, Elisa, MD, MEd
• Aljabri, Badr A., MD
• Forbes, Thomas L., MD
• Verma, Subodh, MD, PhD
• Al-Omran, Mohammed, MD, MSc

Titel

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the long-term outcomes of endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

Ist Teil von

• Journal of vascular surgery, 2019-09, Vol.70 (3), p.954-969.e30

Ort / Verlag

United States: Elsevier Inc

Erscheinungsjahr

2019

Quelle

EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• AbstractObjectiveThis study synthesized the literature comparing the long-term (5-9 years) and very long-term (≥10 years) all-cause mortality, reintervention, and secondary rupture rates between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to May 2018 for studies comparing EVAR to OSR with a minimum follow-up period of 5 years. Study selection, data abstraction, and quality assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane and Newcastle-Ottawa scales. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. ResultsOur search yielded 3431 unique articles. Three randomized controlled trials and 68 observational studies comparing 151,092 EVAR to 148,692 OSR patients were included. Inter-rater agreement was excellent at the screening (κ = 0.78) and full-text review (κ = 0.89) stages. Overall, the risk of bias was low to moderate. For long-term outcomes, 54 studies reported all-cause mortality (n = 203,246), 23 reported reintervention (n = 157,151), and 4 reported secondary rupture (n = 150,135). EVAR was associated with higher long-term all-cause mortality (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06-1.33; P = .003, I2 = 91%), reintervention (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.67-2.69; P < .00001, I2 = 96%), and secondary rupture rates (OR, 4.84; 95% CI, 2.63-8.89; P < .00001, I2 = 92%). For very long-term outcomes, 15 studies reported all-cause mortality (n = 48,721), 9 reported reintervention (n = 7511), and 1 reported secondary rupture (n = 1116). There was no mortality difference between groups, but EVAR was associated with higher reintervention (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.71-3.57; P < .00001, I2 = 84%) and secondary rupture rates (OR, 8.10; 95% CI, 1.01-64.99; P = .05). Subanalysis of more recent studies, with last year of patient recruitment 2010 or after, demonstrated no long-term mortality differences between EVAR and OSR. ConclusionsEVAR is associated with higher long-term all-cause mortality, reintervention, and secondary rupture rates compared with OSR. In the very long-term, EVAR is also associated with higher reintervention and secondary rupture rates. Notably, EVAR mortality has improved over time. Vigilant long-term surveillance of EVAR patients is recommended.