Two-year outcomes after conventional or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.
By J. Blankensteijn, Sjors E de Jong, M. Prinssen, A. C. van der Ham, J. Buth, S. V. van Sterkenburg, H. Verhagen, E. Buskens, Diederick E. Grobbee. New England Journal of Medicine, 2005
813 citations recorded by the source corpus.
BACKGROUND Two randomized trials have shown better outcomes with elective endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms than with conventional open repair in the first month after the procedure. We investigated whether this advantage is sustained beyond the perioperative period. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing open repair with endovascular repair in 351 patients who had received a diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5 cm in diameter and who were considered suitable candidates for both techniques. Survival after randomization was calculated with the use of Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared with the use of the log-rank test on an intention-to-treat-basis. RESULTS Two years after randomization, the cumulative survival rates were 89.6 percent for open repair and 89.7 percent for endovascular repair (difference, -0.1 percentage point; 95 percent confidence interval, -6.8 to 6.7 percentage points). The cumulative rates of aneurysm-related death were 5.7 percent for open repair and 2.1 percent for endovascular repair (difference, 3.7 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.5 to 7.9 percentage points). This advantage of endovascular repair over open repair was entirely accounted for by events occurring in the perioperative period, with no significant difference in subsequent aneurysm-related mortality. The rate of survival free of moderate or severe complications was also similar in the two groups at two years (at 65.9 percent for open repair and 65.6 percent for endovascular repair; difference, 0.3 percentage point; 95 percent confidence interval, -10.0 to 10.6 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS The perioperative survival advantage with endovascular repair as compared with open repair is not sustained after the first postoperative year.
Subfields: Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bb83a57de276551c99b07d7635803289669fde19
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
Citations in the corpus
- Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease (2010, background): “A recommend any important clinical questions addressed in the guidelines do not lend them a very clear clinical consensus that a particular test or therapy is useful or †In 2003, the ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed a commendations have been written in full sentences that express”
- ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiov (2007, background): “However, 2-year follow-up (135) demonstrated cumulative survival rates were not significantly different between the 2 approaches (89.”
- Long-term outcome of open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. (2010, neutral): “Smits; Oosterschelde Hospital, Goes (3) — E.”