Division of Vascular Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
J Vasc Surg. 2013 Jun;57(6):1676-83, 1683.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2013.02.013.
The objective of this study is to provide an up-to-date meta-analysis on the short- and long-term mortality rates of elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) via the open and endovascular approaches.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, conference proceeding from major vascular meetings were searched for randomized trials comparing open vs elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of AAAs. A random-effects model was used for analysis. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of open vs EVAR were calculated for short- and long-term mortality and reintervention rates.
The analysis encompassed four randomized controlled trials with a total of 2783 patients. The open repair group resulted in significantly increased 30-day postoperative all-cause mortality compared with EVAR repair group (3.2% vs 1.2%; RR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.60-4.94); however, there is no statistical difference in the long-term all-cause mortality between both groups (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.86-1.10). Interestingly, fewer patients underwent reintervention procedures in the open repair group compared with those who had EVAR repair (9.3% vs 18.9%; RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.40-0.60), but this finding is doubtful due to the large heterogeneity. Lastly, no statistical difference in long-term mortality rates attributable to cardiovascular disease (CVD), aneurysm related, or stroke were found between the two types of repair.
Results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that the 30-day all-cause mortality rate is higher with open than with EVAR repair; however, there is no statistical difference in the long-term all-cause and cause-specific mortality between both groups. The reintervention rate attributable to procedural complication was higher in the EVAR group. Because of the equivalency of long-term outcomes and the short-term benefits of EVAR, an endovascular-first approach to AAAs can be supported by the meta-analysis.
本研究旨在提供关于开放和血管内修复腹主动脉瘤(AAA)的短期和长期死亡率的最新荟萃分析。
检索 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 对照试验中央注册库,以及主要血管会议的会议记录,以比较开放与选择性血管内动脉瘤修复(EVAR)治疗 AAA 的随机试验。采用随机效应模型进行分析。计算开放组与 EVAR 组短期和长期死亡率和再干预率的风险比(RR)和 95%置信区间(CI)。
该分析包括四项随机对照试验,共纳入 2783 名患者。与 EVAR 修复组相比,开放修复组术后 30 天全因死亡率显著增加(3.2% vs 1.2%;RR,2.81;95%CI,1.60-4.94);然而,两组之间的长期全因死亡率无统计学差异(RR,0.97;95%CI,0.86-1.10)。有趣的是,与 EVAR 修复组相比,开放修复组接受再干预手术的患者较少(9.3% vs 18.9%;RR,0.49;95%CI,0.40-0.60),但由于异质性较大,这一发现值得怀疑。最后,两种修复方法之间在心血管疾病(CVD)、动脉瘤相关和中风导致的长期死亡率方面没有统计学差异。
本荟萃分析结果表明,开放修复的 30 天全因死亡率高于 EVAR 修复;然而,两组之间的长期全因死亡率和特定病因死亡率无统计学差异。EVAR 组因手术并发症导致的再干预率较高。由于长期结果的等效性和 EVAR 的短期优势,血管内优先治疗 AAA 可以得到荟萃分析的支持。