• Benjamin W Starnes, Christopher J Kwolek, Juan C Parodi, and Frank J Veith.
• Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. starnes@u.washington.edu
• Semin Vasc Surg. 2011 Sep 1;24(3):146-8.

AbstractThis article summarizes a differing interpretation of the long-term results of the Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) 1 Trial. The EVAR 1 Trialists' conclusions regarding the equivalence of long-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with those of open repair (OR) are misleading and not applicable to patients currently treated by EVAR. The reasons that the EVAR 1 Trial is misleading and casts an unfairly negative light on the superiority of EVAR are as follows: (1) The convergence of all-cause mortality curves or the "catch-up" phenomenon; (2) old technology, inexperience, and outdated secondary treatment; (3) complications were not well-defined in EVAR 1 and are not applicable to current practice; and (4) the unfair cost comparison between EVAR and OR. The implication that OR is equivalent or superior to EVAR is, therefore, a misrepresentation. EVAR is a better treatment for infrarenal aortic aneurysms in anatomically suitable patients. We believe that current standards of practice should be altered accordingly, rather than preserving the nostrums that EVAR and OR are equivalent and that EVAR has more intrinsic disadvantages.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

8 keywords...

hide…