Annals of vascular surgery · 2023
Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of 10-Year Follow-Up after Endovascular and Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal AorticAneurysms.
МетаанализСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Antonopoulos Constantine N, Moulakakis Konstantinos G, Rorris Filippos-Paschalis, Doxani Chrysoula, Zintzaras Elias
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has conferred an early survival advantage compared to an open surgical repair (OSR) in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA). However, the long-term survival benefit after EVAR was not displayed among randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whereas many non-RCTs have provided conflicting results. We conducted a time-to-event individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis on long-term rAAA data.
METHODS: All studies comparing mortality after EVAR versus OSR for rAAA were included. We used restricted mean survival times (RMSTs) as a measure of life expectancy for EVAR and OSR.
RESULTS: A total of 21 studies, including 12,187 patients (4952 EVAR and 7235 OSR) were finally deemed eligible. A secondary IPD analysis included 725 (372 EVAR and 353 OSR) patients only from the 3 RCTs (Immediate Management of the Patient With Rupture : Open Versus Endovascular Repair, Endovasculaire ou Chirurgie dans les Anévrysmes aorto-iliaques Rompus and Amsterdam Acute Aneurysm Trial trials). Among all studies, the median survival was 4.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.70-4.58) years for EVAR and 1.91 (95% CI: 1.57-2.39) years for OSR. Although EVAR presented with increased hazard risk from 4 to 7 years, which peaked at 6 years after the operation, the RMST difference was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.35-0.73; P < 0.001) years gained with EVAR at the end of the 10-year follow-up. IPD meta-analysis of RCTs did not demonstrate significant differences.
CONCLUSIONS: At 10-years follow-up, EVAR was associated with a 6.5 month increase in life expectancy when compared to OSR after analyzing all eligible studies. Evidence from our study suggests that a strict follow-up program would be desirable, especially for patients with long-life expectancy.
METHODS: All studies comparing mortality after EVAR versus OSR for rAAA were included. We used restricted mean survival times (RMSTs) as a measure of life expectancy for EVAR and OSR.
RESULTS: A total of 21 studies, including 12,187 patients (4952 EVAR and 7235 OSR) were finally deemed eligible. A secondary IPD analysis included 725 (372 EVAR and 353 OSR) patients only from the 3 RCTs (Immediate Management of the Patient With Rupture : Open Versus Endovascular Repair, Endovasculaire ou Chirurgie dans les Anévrysmes aorto-iliaques Rompus and Amsterdam Acute Aneurysm Trial trials). Among all studies, the median survival was 4.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.70-4.58) years for EVAR and 1.91 (95% CI: 1.57-2.39) years for OSR. Although EVAR presented with increased hazard risk from 4 to 7 years, which peaked at 6 years after the operation, the RMST difference was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.35-0.73; P < 0.001) years gained with EVAR at the end of the 10-year follow-up. IPD meta-analysis of RCTs did not demonstrate significant differences.
CONCLUSIONS: At 10-years follow-up, EVAR was associated with a 6.5 month increase in life expectancy when compared to OSR after analyzing all eligible studies. Evidence from our study suggests that a strict follow-up program would be desirable, especially for patients with long-life expectancy.