Ruptured Aneurysm Trials: The Importance of Longer-term Outcomes and Meta-analysis for 1-year Mortality

  • Sweeting M
  • Ulug P
  • Powell J
 et al. 
  • 26

    Readers

    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 31

    Citations

    Citations of this article.

Abstract

Objective: To assess current knowledge for the management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), based on the 1-year outcomes of 3 recent randomised trials. Methods: An individual patient data meta-analysis of three recent randomised trials of endovascular versus open repair, including 817 patients, was conducted according to a pre-specified analysis plan, report all-cause mortality and re-interventions at 1 year after the index event. Results: Mortality across the 3 trials at 1-year was 38.6% for the EVAR or endovascular strategy patient groups and 42.8% for the open repair groups, pooled odds ratio 0.84 (95% CI 0.63-1.11), p =.209. There was no evidence of heterogeneity in the odds ratios between trials. When the patients in the endovascular strategy group of the IMPROVE trial were restricted to those with proven rupture who were anatomically suitable for endovascular repair, the pooled odds ratio reduced slightly to 0.80 (95% CI 0.56-1.16), p =.240. Conclusions: After 1 year there is a consistent but non-significant trend for lower mortality for EVAR or an endovascular strategy. Taken together with the recent gains in health economic outcomes demonstrated at 1 year in the IMPROVE trial, the evidence suggests that endovascular repair should be used more widely for ruptured aneurysms.

Author-supplied keywords

  • Meta-analysis
  • Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document

Authors

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free