Long-Term Outcome of Open or Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Bruin, Jorg L. de; Baas, Annette F.; Buth, Jaap; Prinssen, Monique; Balm, Ron; Grobbee, Diederick E.; Blankensteijn, Jan D.

doi:10.1056/nejmoa0909499

Cited by 920 publications

(620 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

578

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Operative mortality was reported in 2004, 2-year follow-up in 2005 and long-term follow-up in 2010. 97,[102][103][104] The primary study outcomes were rates of death from any cause and reinterventions. The 30-day postoperative mortality was 1.2% after EVAR and 4.6% after OR.…”

Section: The Dutch Randomised Endovascular Aneurysm Management Trialmentioning

confidence: 99%

The UK EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) randomised controlled trials: long-term follow-up and cost-effectiveness analysis

Patel

Powell

Sweeting

et al. 2018

Health Technol Assess

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundShort-term survival benefits of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair (OR) of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms have been shown in randomised trials, but this early survival benefit is soon lost. Survival benefit of EVAR was unclear at follow-up to 10 years.ObjectiveTo assess the long-term efficacy of EVAR against OR in patients deemed fit and suitable for both procedures (EVAR trial 1; EVAR-1); and against no intervention in patients unfit for OR (EVAR trial 2; EVAR-2). To appraise the long-term significance of type II endoleak and define criteria for intervention.DesignTwo national, multicentre randomised controlled trials: EVAR-1 and EVAR-2.SettingPatients were recruited from 37 hospitals in the UK between 1 September 1999 and 31 August 2004.ParticipantsMen and women aged ≥ 60 years with an aneurysm of ≥ 5.5 cm (as identified by computed tomography scanning), anatomically suitable and fit for OR were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to either EVAR (n = 626) or OR (n = 626) in EVAR-1 using computer-generated sequences at the trial hub. Patients considered unfit were randomly assigned to EVAR (n = 197) or no intervention (n = 207) in EVAR-2. There was no blinding.InterventionsEVAR, OR or no intervention.Main outcome measuresThe primary end points were total and aneurysm-related mortality until mid-2015 for both trials. Secondary outcomes for EVAR-1 were reinterventions, costs and cost-effectiveness.ResultsIn EVAR-1, over a mean of 12.7 years (standard deviation 1.5 years; maximum 15.8 years), we recorded 9.3 deaths per 100 person-years in the EVAR group and 8.9 deaths per 100 person-years in the OR group [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.27;p = 0.14]. At 0–6 months after randomisation, patients in the EVAR group had a lower mortality (adjusted HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.02 for total mortality; HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.93 for aneurysm-related mortality;p = 0.031), but beyond 8 years of follow-up patients in the OR group had a significantly lower mortality (adjusted HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.56,p = 0.048 for total mortality; HR 5.82, 95% CI 1.64 to 20.65,p = 0.0064 for aneurysm-related mortality). The increased aneurysm-related mortality in the EVAR group after 8 years was mainly attributable to secondary aneurysm sac rupture, with increased cancer mortality also observed in the EVAR group. Overall, aneurysm reintervention rates were higher in the EVAR group than in the OR group, 4.1 and 1.7 per 100 person-years, respectively (p < 0.001), with reinterventions occurring throughout follow-up. The mean difference in costs over 14 years was £3798 (95% CI £2338 to £5258). Economic modelling based on the outcomes of the EVAR-1 trial showed that the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the patient’s lifetime exceeds conventional thresholds used in the UK. In EVAR-2, patients died at the same rate in both groups, but there was suggestion of lower aneurysm mortality in those who actually underwent EVAR. Type II endoleak itself is not associated with a higher rate of mortality.LimitationsDevices used were implanted between 1999 and 2004. Newer devices might have better results. Later follow-up imaging declined, particularly for OR patients. Methodology to capture reinterventions changed mainly to record linkage through the Hospital Episode Statistics administrative data set from 2009.ConclusionsEVAR has an early survival benefit but an inferior late survival benefit compared with OR, which needs to be addressed by lifelong surveillance of EVAR and reintervention if necessary. EVAR does not prolong life in patients unfit for OR. Type II endoleak alone is relatively benign.Future workTo find easier ways to monitor sac expansion to trigger timely reintervention.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN55703451.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and the results will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Section: The Dutch Randomised Endovascular Aneurysm Management Trialmentioning

confidence: 99%

The UK EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) randomised controlled trials: long-term follow-up and cost-effectiveness analysis

Patel

Powell

Sweeting

et al. 2018

Health Technol Assess

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This contrasts with the published randomised trials in which survival following open repair and EVAR is similar. 38,76,120 This could be a result of differences in the patients selected for EVAR or open repair. Unlike earlier clinical trials, surgeons now undertake EVAR in most patients with suitable anatomy that are unfit for open repair.…”

Section: Survival Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calculating when elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair improves survival for individual patients: development of the Aneurysm Repair Decision Aid and economic evaluation

Grant

Sperrin

Carlson

et al. 2015

Health Technology Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAbdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair aims to prevent premature death from AAA rupture. Elective repair is currently recommended when AAA diameter reaches 5.5 cm (men) and 5.0 cm (women). Applying population-based indications may not be appropriate for individual patient decisions, as the optimal indication is likely to differ between patients based on age and comorbidities.ObjectiveTo develop an Aneurysm Repair Decision Aid (ARDA) to indicate when elective AAA repair optimises survival for individual patients and to assess the cost-effectiveness and associated uncertainty of elective repair at the aneurysm diameter recommended by the ARDA compared with current practice.Data sourcesThe UK Vascular Governance North West and National Vascular Database provided individual patient data to develop predictive models for perioperative mortality and survival. Data from published literature were used to model AAA growth and risk of rupture. The cost-effectiveness analysis used data from published literature and from local and national databases.MethodsA combination of systematic review methods and clinical registries were used to provide data to populate models and inform the structure of the ARDA. Discrete event simulation (DES) was used to model the patient journey from diagnosis to death and synthesised data were used to estimate patient outcomes and costs for elective repair at alternative aneurysm diameters. Eight patient clinical scenarios (vignettes) were used as exemplars. The DES structure was validated by clinical and statistical experts. The economic evaluation estimated costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from the NHS, social care provider and patient perspective over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness acceptability analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty in the data and the value for money of ARDA-based decisions. The ARDA outcome measures include perioperative mortality risk, annual risk of rupture, 1-, 5- and 10-year survival, postoperative long-term survival, median life expectancy and predicted time to current threshold for aneurysm repair. The primary economic measure was the ICER using the QALY as the measure of health benefit.ResultsThe analysis demonstrated it is feasible to build and run a complex clinical decision aid using DES. The model results support current guidelines for most vignettes but suggest that earlier repair may be effective in younger, fitter patients and ongoing surveillance may be effective in elderly patients with comorbidities. The model adds information to support decisions for patients with aneurysms outside current indications. The economic evaluation suggests that using the ARDA compared with current guidelines could be cost-effective but there is a high level of uncertainty.LimitationsLack of high-quality long-term data to populate all sections of the model meant that there is high uncertainty about the long-term clinical and economic consequences of repair. Modelling assumptions were necessary and the developed survival models require external validation.ConclusionsThe ARDA provides detailed information on the potential consequences of AAA repair or a decision not to repair that may be helpful to vascular surgeons and their patients in reaching informed decisions. Further research is required to reduce uncertainty about key data, including reintervention following AAA repair, and assess the acceptability and feasibility of the ARDA for use in routine clinical practice.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

show abstract

“…5 Long-term outcomes from the United Kingdom Small Aneurysm Trial and the endovascular versus open repair studies, Dutch-Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM), EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) 1, and Open Versus Endovascular Repair (OVER) trials, offer an important clue: there has been a significant reduction in cardiovascular deaths and >50% of post-EVAR deaths in each of the recent trials were because of noncardiovascular causes (Table). 6,9,11,12 The changes in the patterns of mortality are mirrored in cardiovascular disease-driven outcomes in general, which have declining for decades. 13 The causes of death predicted by TTE in the work by O'Driscoll et al 10 takes on a heightened importance in this setting, as current causes of death in their study are unknown.…”

Section: See Article By O'driscoll Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

Preoperative Transthoracic Echocardiography in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Muñoz

Beckman

2016

Circ: Cardiovascular Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-Term Outcome of Open or Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Abstract: Six years after randomization, endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm resulted in similar rates of survival. The rate of secondary interventions was significantly higher for endovascular repair. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00421330.)

Cited by 920 publications

References 14 publications

The UK EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) randomised controlled trials: long-term follow-up and cost-effectiveness analysis

The UK EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) randomised controlled trials: long-term follow-up and cost-effectiveness analysis

Calculating when elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair improves survival for individual patients: development of the Aneurysm Repair Decision Aid and economic evaluation

Preoperative Transthoracic Echocardiography in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About