Published in

Oxford University Press, British Journal of Surgery, 3(104), p. 166-178, 2017

DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10430

Elsevier, Journal of Vascular Surgery, 5(65), p. 1539-1540

DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.03.403

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Meta-analysis of individual-patient data from EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE trials comparing outcomes of endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm over 5 years

Journal article published in 2016 by J. T. Powell, J. Warner‐Carpenter, R. M. Greenhalgh, J. (James) D D. Beard, L. C. Brown, M. (M.) J J. Buxton, F. (Frank) E. G. Vermassen, P. L. Harris, J. D. G. Rose, Mj J. Sweeting, I. T. Russell, M. (Mark) J J. Sculpher, R. J. Lilford, S. G. Thompson, S. C. Whitaker and other authors.
This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Background The erosion of the early mortality advantage of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm remains without a satisfactory explanation. Methods An individual-patient data meta-analysis of four multicentre randomized trials of EVAR versus open repair was conducted to a prespecified analysis plan, reporting on mortality, aneurysm-related mortality and reintervention. Results The analysis included 2783 patients, with 14???245 person-years of follow-up (median 5??5???years). Early (0???6 months after randomization) mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (46 of 1393 versus 73 of 1390 deaths; pooled hazard ratio 0??61, 95 per cent c.i. 0??42 to 0??89; P = 0??010), primarily because 30-day operative mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (16 deaths versus 40 for open repair; pooled odds ratio 0??40, 95 per cent c.i. 0??22 to 0??74). Later (within 3 years) the survival curves converged, remaining converged to 8 years. Beyond 3 years, aneurysm-related mortality was significantly higher in the EVAR groups (19 deaths versus 3 for open repair; pooled hazard ratio 5??16, 1??49 to 17??89; P = 0??010). Patients with moderate renal dysfunction or previous coronary artery disease had no early survival advantage under EVAR. Those with peripheral artery disease had lower mortality under open repair (39 deaths versus 62 for EVAR; P???=???0??022) in the period from 6 months to 4 years after randomization. Conclusion The early survival advantage in the EVAR group, and its subsequent erosion, were confirmed. Over 5???years, patients of marginal fitness had no early survival advantage from EVAR compared with open repair. Aneurysm-related mortality and patients with low ankle???:???brachial pressure index contributed to the erosion of the early survival advantage for the EVAR group. Trial registration numbers: EVAR-1, ISRCTN55703451; DREAM???(Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management), NCT00421330; ACE (An??vrysme de l'aorte abdominale, Chirurgie versus Endoproth??se), NCT00224718; OVER (Open Versus Endovascular Repair Trial for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms), NCT00094575.