International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2020
Inverse probability of treatment analysis of open vs endovascular repair in ruptured infrarenal aortic aneurysm - Cohort study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Eilenberg Wolf, Schwarz Michael, Schoder Maria, Klinger Markus, Kinstner Christian, Nanobachvili Josif, Huk Ihor, Neumayer Christoph, Heinze Georg, Domenig Christoph M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To compare open repair (OR) with EVAR for the management of ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAA) in a cohort study over a time period of 15 years with inverse probability of treatment weights.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2000/01 through 2015/12 136 patients were treated for RAAA, 98 (72.1%) underwent OR, 38 (27.9%) were treated with EVAR. Thirty-day and long-term mortality (survival) were analyzed in this IRB-approved retrospective cohort study. Treatment modalities were compared using inverse probability of treatment weights to adjust for imbalances in demographic data and risk factors.
RESULTS: EVAR patients were older (75.11 ± 7.17 vs 69.79 ± 10.24; p=0.001). There was no statistical difference in gender, hypertension, COPD, CAD, or diabetes. GFR was significantly higher in OR patients (71.4 ± 31.09 vs. 53.68 ± 25.73). Postoperative dialysis was required more frequently in EVAR patients: 11% vs. 2% (p = 0.099). In the OR group, adjusted cumulative survival was 70.4% (61.1, 81.1) at 30 days, 47.0% (37.1, 59.6) at one year and 38.3% (28.6, 51.3) at 5 years. In the EVAR group the corresponding numbers were 77.0% (67.7, 87.5), 67.5% (57.0, 80.0) and 41.7% (30.4, 57.4), respectively.
CONCLUSION: There is evidence for EVAR patients exhibiting a benefit in one-year survival, while patients treated with OR may have more favorable long-term survival given they survive for at least one year. Herein we provide a statistically rigorous comparison of OR and EVAR in short and long-term outcomes with up to 15 years of follow-up.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2000/01 through 2015/12 136 patients were treated for RAAA, 98 (72.1%) underwent OR, 38 (27.9%) were treated with EVAR. Thirty-day and long-term mortality (survival) were analyzed in this IRB-approved retrospective cohort study. Treatment modalities were compared using inverse probability of treatment weights to adjust for imbalances in demographic data and risk factors.
RESULTS: EVAR patients were older (75.11 ± 7.17 vs 69.79 ± 10.24; p=0.001). There was no statistical difference in gender, hypertension, COPD, CAD, or diabetes. GFR was significantly higher in OR patients (71.4 ± 31.09 vs. 53.68 ± 25.73). Postoperative dialysis was required more frequently in EVAR patients: 11% vs. 2% (p = 0.099). In the OR group, adjusted cumulative survival was 70.4% (61.1, 81.1) at 30 days, 47.0% (37.1, 59.6) at one year and 38.3% (28.6, 51.3) at 5 years. In the EVAR group the corresponding numbers were 77.0% (67.7, 87.5), 67.5% (57.0, 80.0) and 41.7% (30.4, 57.4), respectively.
CONCLUSION: There is evidence for EVAR patients exhibiting a benefit in one-year survival, while patients treated with OR may have more favorable long-term survival given they survive for at least one year. Herein we provide a statistically rigorous comparison of OR and EVAR in short and long-term outcomes with up to 15 years of follow-up.