Elective Endovascular vs Open Repair for Elective Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Patients ≥80 years of Age: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Objective To provide updated, pooled evidence on clinical outcomes among octogenarians (aged ≥80 years) with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) managed by elective endovascular repair, compared to conventional open repair. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were systematically searched. Studies that were either observational or randomized controlled trials were considered for the review. Included studies were conducted in elderly subjects (≥80 years) with AAA, and clinical and mortality outcomes were compared between endovascular and open surgical repair. Those reporting on outcomes of patients with urgent repair were excluded. The primary outcomes of interest were mortality and risk of complications. The pooled effect sizes were reported as odds ratio (OR) for categorical outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes. STATA software was used for statistical analysis. Results The meta-analysis included 15 studies. Compared to those undergoing open repair, patients receiving endovascular repair had significantly reduced risk of immediate post-operative mortality (OR .23, 95% CI: .20, .27), overall complication (OR .30, 95% CI: .20, .44), cardiac (OR .23, 95% CI: .16, .35), renal (OR .29, 95% CI: .18, .46), pulmonary (OR .14, 95% CI: .09, .21) and bleeding related (OR .59, 95% CI: .42, .83) complications. The risk of mortality at latest follow up (at 36 months and 60 months) was similar in the two groups. The total blood loss (ml) (WMD -1126.47, 95% CI: −1497.81, −755.13), operative time (min) (WMD -29.40, 95% CI: −56.19, −2.62), length of intensive care unit stay (days) (WMD -2.27, 95% CI: −3.43, −2.12) and overall hospital stay (days) (WMD −6.64, 95% CI: −7.60, −5.68) was significantly lower in those undergoing endovascular repair. Conclusions Endovascular repair appears to be better than open repair of AAA in this high-risk, frail population, with respect to short term outcomes. The benefits of reduced risk of short term mortality, complications, and better peri and post-operative outcomes may be considered when making a choice between these two surgical approaches. Randomized controlled trials are needed to provide reliable evidence on the effect of EVAR on long term survival.

Experimental and Clinical Studies in Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm : Aspects of Hypothermia and Endovascular Treatment

“…43 Almost immediately after introduction of the EVAR during 1990s debates on pros and cons started. Numerous comparisons between EVAR and open surgical repair have been carried out based on long-term treatment durability, [44][45][46] postoperative complications, 47 mortality, 48,49 quality of life and patient´s experiences, 50 gender aspects, 51 cost effectiveness, 52,53 preferences in treating octogenarians, 54,55 preferences in treating inflammatory or mycotic aneurysms, 56,57 preferences in treating active smokers, 58 preferences in treatment of obese patients, 59 preferences regarding need of redoes and a custom-made approach decided by artificial intelligence. 60 By 2020 there were seven Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) with a total number of 2 983 included patients in elective cases.…”