Back to Search Start Over

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

Authors :
Li B
Khan S
Salata K
Hussain MA
de Mestral C
Greco E
Aljabri BA
Forbes TL
Verma S
Al-Omran M
Source :
Journal of vascular surgery [J Vasc Surg] 2019 Sep; Vol. 70 (3), pp. 954-969.e30. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 May 27.
Publication Year :
2019

Abstract

Objective: This 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).<br />Methods: MEDLINE, 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 I <superscript>2</superscript> statistic, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots.<br />Results: Our 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, I <superscript>2</superscript>  = 91%), reintervention (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.67-2.69; P < .00001, I <superscript>2</superscript>  = 96%), and secondary rupture rates (OR, 4.84; 95% CI, 2.63-8.89; P < .00001, I <superscript>2</superscript>  = 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, I <superscript>2</superscript>  = 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.<br />Conclusions: EVAR 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.<br /> (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1097-6809
Volume :
70
Issue :
3
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Journal of vascular surgery
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
31147117
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2019.01.076