PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of studies in which endovascular repair was compared with open surgery in the treatment of patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the English-language literature from January 1994 until March 2006 was performed. Inclusion criteria for studies were that they were about a comparison between patients who underwent endovascular repair and patients who underwent open surgery, that each treatment group included at least five patients, that information about patients' hemodynamic condition at presentation was reported, and that 30-day mortality was reported for each treatment group. Two reviewers independently extracted the data, and discrepancies were resolved by an arbiter. Random-effects models and meta-regression analysis were used to calculate crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for endovascular repair versus open surgery. RESULTS: Ten studies, in which the results of 478 procedures (n=148 for endovascular repair, n=330 for open surgery) were reported, met the inclusion criteria. All studies were observational; no randomized controlled trials were found. The pooled 30-day mortality was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 16%, 29%) for endovascular repair and 38% (95% CI: 32%, 45%) for open surgery. The pooled rate for total systemic complications was 28% (95% CI: 17%, 48%) for endovascular repair and 56% (95% CI: 37%, 85%) for open surgery. The crude OR for 30-day mortality for endovascular repair compared with open surgery was 0.45 (95% CI: 0.28, 0.72). After adjustment for patients' hemodynamic condition, the OR was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.31, 1.44). CONCLUSION: In this systematic review, after adjustment for patients' hemodynamic condition at presentation, a benefit in 30-day mortality for endovascular repair compared with open surgery for patients with a ruptured AAA was observed, but it was not statistically significant. Copyright (c) RSNA, 2007.
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of studies in which endovascular repair was compared with open surgery in the treatment of patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the English-language literature from January 1994 until March 2006 was performed. Inclusion criteria for studies were that they were about a comparison between patients who underwent endovascular repair and patients who underwent open surgery, that each treatment group included at least five patients, that information about patients' hemodynamic condition at presentation was reported, and that 30-day mortality was reported for each treatment group. Two reviewers independently extracted the data, and discrepancies were resolved by an arbiter. Random-effects models and meta-regression analysis were used to calculate crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for endovascular repair versus open surgery. RESULTS: Ten studies, in which the results of 478 procedures (n=148 for endovascular repair, n=330 for open surgery) were reported, met the inclusion criteria. All studies were observational; no randomized controlled trials were found. The pooled 30-day mortality was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 16%, 29%) for endovascular repair and 38% (95% CI: 32%, 45%) for open surgery. The pooled rate for total systemic complications was 28% (95% CI: 17%, 48%) for endovascular repair and 56% (95% CI: 37%, 85%) for open surgery. The crude OR for 30-day mortality for endovascular repair compared with open surgery was 0.45 (95% CI: 0.28, 0.72). After adjustment for patients' hemodynamic condition, the OR was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.31, 1.44). CONCLUSION: In this systematic review, after adjustment for patients' hemodynamic condition at presentation, a benefit in 30-day mortality for endovascular repair compared with open surgery for patients with a ruptured AAA was observed, but it was not statistically significant. Copyright (c) RSNA, 2007.
Authors: Kristina A Giles; Allen D Hamdan; Frank B Pomposelli; Mark C Wyers; Suzanne E Dahlberg; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Christian B van der Pol; Matthew D F McInnes; William Petrcich; Adam S Tunis; Ramez Hanna Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-16 Impact factor: 3.240