"skipMainNavigation"
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
The logo for the journal RadioGraphics
The logo for the journal Radiology: Imaging Cancer
The logo for the journal Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging
The logo for the journal Radiology: Artificial Intelligence
Menu
Previous
Next
Original Research

Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Endovascular Repair versus Open Surgery—Systematic Review

Published Online:Oct 1 2007https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2451061204

Abstract

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.

Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/245/1/122/DC1

© RSNA, 2007

References

  • 1 Yusuf SW, Whitaker SC, Chuter TA, Wenham PW, Hopkinson BR. Emergency endovascular repair of leaking aortic aneurysm [letter]. Lancet 1994; 344: 1645.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Leon LR Jr, Labropoulos N, Laredo J, Rodriguez HE, Kalman PG. To what extent has endovascular aneurysm repair influenced abdominal aortic aneurysm management in the state of Illinois? J Vasc Surg 2005; 41: 568–574.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 3 Hinchliffe RJ, Yusuf SW, Macierewicz JA, MacSweeney ST, Wenham PW, Hopkinson BR. Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: a challenge to open repair? results of a single centre experience in 20 patients. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2001; 22: 528–534.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 4 van Sambeek MR, van Dijk LC, Hendriks JM, et al. Endovascular versus conventional open repair of acute abdominal aortic aneurysm: feasibility and preliminary results. J Endovasc Ther 2002; 9: 443–448.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 5 Veith FJ, Ohki T. Endovascular approaches to ruptured infrarenal aorto-iliac aneurysms. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2002; 43: 369–378.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 6 Blankensteijn JD, de Jong SE, Prinssen M, et al. Two-year outcomes after conventional or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 2398–2405.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 7 EVAR trial participants. Endovascular aneurysm repair versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 365: 2179–2186.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 8 Peppelenbosch N, Yilmaz N, van Marrewijk C, et al. Emergency treatment of acute symptomatic or ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: outcome of a prospective intent-to-treat by EVAR protocol. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2003; 26: 303–310.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 9 Reichart M, Geelkerken RH, Huisman AB, van Det RJ, de Smit P, Volker EP. Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: endovascular repair is feasible in 40% of patients. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2003; 26: 479–486.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 10 Resch T, Malina M, Lindblad B, Dias NV, Sonesson B, Ivancev K. Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: logistics and short-term results. J Endovasc Ther 2003; 10: 440–446.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 11 Alsac JM, Desgranges P, Kobeiter H, Becquemin JP. Emergency endovascular repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: feasibility and comparison of early results with conventional open repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2005; 30: 632–639.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 12 Brandt M, Walluscheck KP, Jahnke T, Graw K, Cremer J, Muller-Hulsbeck S. Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: feasibility and impact on early outcome. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005; 16: 1309–1312.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 13 Castelli P, Caronno R, Piffaretti G, et al. Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: endovascular treatment. Abdom Imaging 2005; 30: 263–269.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 14 Kapma MR, Verhoeven EL, Tielliu IF, et al. Endovascular treatment of acute abdominal aortic aneurysm with a bifurcated stentgraft. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2005; 29: 510–515.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 15 Larzon T, Lindgren R, Norgren L. Endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: a shift of the paradigm? J Endovasc Ther 2005; 12: 548–555.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 16 Vaddineni SK, Russo GC, Patterson MA, Taylor SM, Jordan WD Jr. Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: a retrospective assessment of open versus endovascular repair. Ann Vasc Surg 2005; 19: 782–786.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 17 Franks S, Lloyd G, Fishwick G, Bown M, Sayers R. Endovascular treatment of ruptured and symptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2006; 31: 345–350.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 18 Stone PW. Popping the (PICO) question in research and evidence-based practice. Appl Nurs Res 2002; 15: 197–198.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 19 ISI WEB OF KNOWLEDGE: WEB OF SCIENCE [database online]. Philadelphia, Pa: Thomson Scientific, 2006. http://portal.isiknowledge.com/. Accessed March 2, 2006.
    Google Scholar
  • 20 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177–188.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 21 Begg CB, Berlin JA. Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. J R Stat Soc 1988; 151: 419–463.
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Johansen K, Kohler TR, Nicholls SC, Zierler RE, Clowes AW, Kazmers A. Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: the Harborview experience. J Vasc Surg 1991; 13: 240–245.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 23 Halpern VJ, Kline RG, D'Angelo AJ, Cohen JR. Factors that affect the survival rate of patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 1997; 26: 939–945.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 24 Turton EP, Scott DJ, Delbridge M, Snowden S, Kester RC. Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: a novel method of outcome prediction using neural network technology. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2000; 19: 184–189.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 25 Sharpe N. Clinical trials and the real world: selection bias and generalisability of trial results. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 2002; 16: 75–77.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 26 Lloyd-Williams F, Mair F, Shiels C, et al. Why are patients in clinical trials of heart failure not like those we see in everyday practice? J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 1157–1162.
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Hordijk-Trion M, Lenzen M, Wijns W, et al. Patients enrolled in coronary intervention trials are not representative of patients in clinical practice: results from the Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularization. Eur Heart J 2006; 27: 671–678.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 28 Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? empirical study. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7: 1–76.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 29 Moher D, Pham B, Lawson ML, Klassen TP. The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7: 1–90.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 30 Sampram ES, Karafa MT, Mascha EJ, et al. Nature, frequency, and predictors of secondary procedures after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg 2003; 37: 930–937.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 31 Hobo R, Buth J. Secondary interventions following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using current endografts: a EUROSTAR report. J Vasc Surg 2006; 43: 896–902.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 32 Visser JJ, van Sambeek MR, Hunink MG, et al. Acute abdominal aortic aneurysms: cost analysis of endovascular repair and open surgery in hemodynamically stable patients with 1-year follow-up. Radiology 2006; 240: 681–689.
    Google Scholar
  • 33 A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group. JAMA 1994; 272: 1926–1931. [Published correction appears in JAMA 1995;273:776.]
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 34 Checklist of information for inclusion in reports of clinical trials. The Asilomar Working Group on Recommendations for Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biomedical Literature. Ann Intern Med 1996; 124: 741–743.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 35 Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996; 276: 637–639.
    Medline Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2007