We performed an analysis to assess the need for conducting additional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing open and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) is a statistical methodology that can calculate the required information size of a meta-analysis and assess the risk of random errors similar to interim analysis in a single optimally powered trial. It helps to decide whether we have obtained sufficient evidence or whether further RCTs are required. For short-term mortality reintervention rates, TSA showed firm evidence that there would be no extra benefit in conducting more RCTs to detect the effectiveness of EVAR versus open repair. For long-term mortality, TSA revealed either inconclusive evidence to support or refute endovascular or open repair; so, further RCTs should be performed to investigate long-term, all-cause mortality after AAA repair.
HirschATHaskalZJHertzerNR. ACC/AHA 2005 practice guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic). Circulation. 2006;113(11):e463–e654.
2.
KoskasFKiefferE. Long-term survival after elective repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm: results of a prospective multicentric study. association for academic research in vascular surgery (AURC). Ann Vasc Surg. 1997;11(5):473–481.
3.
BlankensteijnJDLindenburgFPVan der GraafYEikelboomBC. Influence of study design on reported mortality and morbidity rates after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Br J Surg. 1998;85(12):1624–1630.
4.
SanchezLAMarinMLVeithFJ. Placement of endovascular stented grafts via remote access sites: a new approach to the treatment of failed aortoiliofemoral reconstructions. Ann Vasc Surg. 1995;9(1):1–8.
5.
ParodiJCPalmazJCBaroneHD. Transfemoral intraluminal graft implantation for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg. 1991;5(6):491–499.
6.
LottmanPELaheijRJCuypersPWBenderMButhJ. Health-related quality of life outcomes following elective open or endovascular AAA repair: a randomized controlled trial. J Endovasc Ther. 2004;11(3):323–329.
7.
SoulezGTherasseEMonfaredAA. Pain and quality of life assessment after endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in patients at low risk. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005;16(8):1093–1100.
8.
LederleFAFreischlagJAKyriakidesTC. Outcomes following endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1535–1542.
9.
De BruinJLBaasAFButhJ. Long-term outcome of open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(20):1881–1889.
10.
GreenhalghRMBrownLCPowellJTThompsonSGEpsteinDSculpherMJ. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(20):1863–1871.
11.
BecqueminJPPilletJCLescalieF. A randomized controlled trial of endovascular aneurysm repair versus open surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysms in low- to moderate-risk patients. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53(5):1167–1173 e1.
12.
DangasGO’ConnorDFirwanaB. Open versus endovascular stent graft repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5(10):1071–1080.
13.
WetterslevJThorlundKBrokJGluudC. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(1):64–75.
14.
ThorlundKDevereauxPJWetterslevJ. Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses?Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38(1):276–286.
15.
ThorlundKEngstrømJWetterslevJBrockJImbergerGGluudC.User Manual for Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research; 2011:1–115. www.ctu.dk/tsa
16.
ThorlundKImbergerGWalshM. The number of patients and events required to limit the risk of overestimation of intervention effects in meta-analysis—a simulation study. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25491.
17.
WetterslevJThorlundKBrokJGluudC. Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effects model meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:86.
18.
BrokJThorlundKGluudCWetterslevJ. Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(8):763–769.
19.
SchulzKFChalmersIHayesRJAltmanDG. Empirical evidence of bias. dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273(5):408–412.
20.
MoherDPhamBJonesA. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?Lancet. 1998;352(9128):609–613.
21.
KjaergardLLVillumsenJGluudC. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(11):982–989.
22.
WoodLEggerMGluudLL. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601–605.
23.
SavovićJJonesHEAltmanDG. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(6):429–438.
