1. Design of the PReferences for Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (PROVE-AAA) Trial
- Author
-
Columbo, Jesse A., Kang, Ravinder, Spangler, Emily L., Newhall, Karina, Brooke, Benjamin S., Dosluoglu, Hasan, Lee, Eugene S., Raffetto, Joseph D., Henke, Peter K., Tang, Gale S., Mureebe, Leila, Kougias, Panagoitis, Johanning, Jason, Arya, Shipra, Scali, Salvatore T., Stone, David H., Suckow, Bjoern D., Orion, Kristine, Halpern, Vivienne, O'Connell, Jessica, Inhat, Daniel, Nelson, Peter, Tzeng, Edith, Zhou, Wei, Barry, Michael, Sirovich, Brenda, Goodney, Philip P., Gaudette, Cory, Grippa, Francisco, Voorhees, Amy, Moore, Kayla, Dowse, Catherine, Barbey, Sarah, Galla, Ann, Grove, Lori, Belanger, Karen, Karamoto, Angela, Patel, Veep, Bigda, Susan, Jabori, Sinan, Chun, Kevin, Beckstrom, Julie, Maloney, Maria, Schieber, Molly, Zoble, Adam, Anderson, Stephanie, and Morrison, Michael
- Abstract
For patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), randomized trials have found endovascular AAA repair (EVAR) is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and mortality than open surgical repair (OSR). However, OSR has fewer long-term aneurysm-related complications, such as endoleak or late rupture. Patients treated with EVAR and OSR have similar survival rates within two years after surgery, and OSR does not require intensive surveillance. Few have examined if patient preferences are aligned with the type of treatment they receive for their AAA. Although many assume that patients may universally prefer the less-invasive nature of EVAR, our preliminary work suggests that patients who value the lower risk of late complications may prefer OSR.
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF