1 / 19

A Metanalysis on the Long Term Outcomes Comparing Endovascular Repair Versus Open Repair

A Metanalysis on the Long Term Outcomes Comparing Endovascular Repair Versus Open Repair of an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. JOSHUA M. CAMOMOT, M.D. Perpetual Succour Hospital -Cebu Heart Institute. INTRODUCTION. ABDOMINAL AORTIC ANEURYSMS (AAAs)

theta
Télécharger la présentation

A Metanalysis on the Long Term Outcomes Comparing Endovascular Repair Versus Open Repair

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Metanalysis on the Long Term Outcomes Comparing Endovascular Repair Versus Open Repair of an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm JOSHUA M. CAMOMOT, M.D. Perpetual Succour Hospital -Cebu Heart Institute

  2. INTRODUCTION • ABDOMINAL AORTIC ANEURYSMS (AAAs) • an increase in size of the abdominal aorta to more than 3.0 cm in diameter • MC: infrarenal aorta • overall incidence of AAAs appears to have increased steadily over the past several decades; incidence strongly associates with age • men 5x > women • strongly associate with cigarette smoking Braunwald’s 9th Ed

  3. Estimates.. • 30% to 50%die before reaching a hospital • 30% to 40%die after reaching a hospital but before operative treatment • operative mortality rate after rupture is 40% to 50%. • gradually expand (0.3 to 0.5 cm/year)  eventually RUPTURE • risk of AAA rupture is closely correlated with aneurysm size; 5-year risk of rupture • 5%: 3.0 to 4.0 cm • 10% to 20% : 4.0 to 5.5 cm • 30% to 40%: 5.5 to 6.0 cm • > 80%: > 7.0 cm Chaikof EL, Brewster DC, Dalman RL, et al: The care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm: The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines.  J Vasc Surg  2009; 50(Suppl):S2

  4. EVOLUTION OF ANEURYSM REPAIR.. 1951 1986 1991 2006 EVAR > Open repair Minimally invasive surgery Endovascular repair (Parodii, et al) Open repair Parodi JC,. Ann VascSurg 1991;5:491-9. Schwarze ML, et alJVasc Surg. 2009;50:722.e2–729.e2.

  5. Open Repair • in hospital and 30 day mortality • 6% • midterm outcomes • equal mortality risk with • EVAR • lower risk of reintervention • EVAR • in hospital and 30 day mortality • 1-1.7% • Midterm outcomes • equal mortality risk with • open repair • increased risk of • reintervention

  6. RESEARCH QUESTION • Is endovascular repair at par with open repair in terms of long term all cause mortality and reintervention in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms?

  7. OBJECTIVES • To determine the long term outcomes of endovascular repair versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm. • SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES: • To determine the outcomes at least 3 years after endovascular repair versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm based on: • All cause mortality • Rate of reintervention

  8. METHODOLOGY • SEARCH STRATEGY: • Literature search was done through PUBMED, Highwire press, and Clinicaltrials.gov with the following keywords: • abdominal aortic anuerysm • endovascular repair • long term outcomes • randomized clinical trials

  9. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA • clinical trials which randomized patients with non ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5cm in diameter that were suitable to either endovascular or open repair • study outcomes including all cause mortality and rate of reintervention • follow up period of at least 3 years • EXCLUSION CRITERIA • studies dealing with ruptured abdominal aortic aneuryms • non RCTs • follow up period of less than 3 years

  10. RESULTS STUDY CHARACTERISTICS

  11. Table 2. Death and all cause mortality in the EVAR and open repair group

  12. Figure 1. Risk difference and confidence intervals for the outcome of death and all cause mortality between EVAR and open repair Favor open repair Favor EVAR

  13. Table 3. Reintervention in the EVAR group and open repair group

  14. Figure 2. Risk difference and confidence intervals for the outcome of reintervention after EVAR and open repair Favor open repair

  15. DISCUSSION • ALL CAUSE MORTALITY • EVAR 1, DREAM , ACE • no differences were seen in total mortality between the treatment groups (35%) • most common causes all of mortality • EVAR 1: ischemic heart disease • DREAM: cardiovascular causes (MI, stroke) • ACE: not stated • Aneurysm related mortality (EVAR1, ACE) • overall risk is low (EVAR 2% – 4% vs open repair 0.4% - 0.6%) • most commonly from graft rupture

  16. REINTERVENTION • more reinterventions in the EVAR group compared with the open repair group • Most common causes of reintervention (DREAM,ACE) • Open repair: incisional hernia repairs • EVAR: endoleaks, thrombo occlusive disease • reinterventions (due to graft occlusions) following endovascular repair shows a trend towards increased aneurysm related mortality (DREAM, ACE)

  17. CONCLUSION • endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm resulted in similar risk of long term survival. • risk of secondary interventions was significantly higher after endovascular repair.

  18. IMPLICATIONS • In our local clinical setting, open repair would still be the more practical choice because • long term mortality are not significantly different • more experience with open repair • technology and expertise – EVAR is worth trying • Reintervention • long- term disadvantage in overall survival?? risks associated with reintervention need to be assessed in larger studies

More Related