• George A Antoniou, Naseer Ahmed, George S Georgiadis, and Francesco Torella.
• Liverpool Vascular and Endovascular Service, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK antoniou.ga@hotmail.com.
• Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015 Jan 1;20(1):135-9.

AbstractA best evidence topic in vascular surgery was constructed according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treated with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) have improved in-hospital outcomes compared with conventional surgical repair. The reported search retrieved 1398 reports, of which 6 papers were thought to represent the best available evidence to answer the study question. Three randomized trials were identified. The first was a pilot trial conducted in a single centre in the UK, which recruited 32 patients and found similar 30-day mortality in the patient groups. The second trial, conducted in Netherlands, recruited 116 patients anatomically suitable for EVAR. This trial found no significant difference in the composite of death and severe complications within 30 days of intervention between patients subjected to EVAR and those undergoing open repair (42 vs 47%; absolute risk reduction 5.4%, 95% confidence interval: -13% to +23%). The IMPROVE trial, based on a pragmatic design, demonstrated similar 30-day mortality in the 613 patients randomized to endovascular strategy or open repair (35.4 vs 37.4%, P = 0.62). The average hospital costs within the first 30 days of randomization were similar between the randomized groups, with an incremental cost-saving for the endovascular strategy vs open repair of £1186. Meta-analysis of all three randomized trials in a Cochrane review found no difference in 30-day or in-hospital mortality between EVAR and open repair (odds ratio: 0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.67-1.22; P = 0.52). In contrast, a systematic review and meta-analysis, mainly of observational, cohort studies, and another large, nationwide study demonstrated EVAR to be associated with improved in-hospital results compared with open repair, as expressed by mortality, severe complications, length of hospital stay and proportion of patients discharged home. Even though randomized trials demonstrate equivalent in-hospital mortality with EVAR and open repair, large-scale, nationwide, observational studies and meta-analyses have shown EVAR to confer improved in-hospital mortality and morbidity in patients with favourable aneurysm morphology stable enough to undergo imaging. Reconfiguration of acute aortic services and establishment of standardized institutional protocols might be advisable for improvements in the management of ruptured AAA.© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

29 keywords...

hide…