Impact of Randomized Trials Comparing Conventional and Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair on Clinical Practice

Abstract

Purpose:

To report a retrospective study into the effects of trials on clinical decision-making regarding abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patients suitable for both conventional open (OR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

Methods:

A questionnaire was sent to 1400 Dutch surgeons and trainees. Interviewees had to choose between OR and EVAR for AAA patients with and without comorbidity. Specifically, their preferences before and after the publication of 2 randomized trials (EVAR-1 and DREAM) were polled.

Results:

Of the 524 (37%) questionnaires returned, 223 (43%) respondents treated AAA patients. Before publication of the trials, 160 (72%) preferred OR for the patient without comorbidity and 169 (76%) preferred EVAR for the patient with comorbidity. In total, 72 (32%) respondents changed their preference after the trials were published; however, there was no overall major shift. Focusing on the different cases revealed that the OR preference was significantly enhanced for the patient without comorbidity (p<0.01), while the EVAR preference was significantly enhanced for the patient with comorbidity (p<0.05).

Conclusion:

The randomized trials have not induced major overall changes in surgical decision-making for AAA patients suitable for both EVAR and OR.

Keywords

abdominal aortic aneurysm endovascular aneurysm repair open repair randomized controlled trials questionnaire

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

The UK Small Aneurysm Trial Participants. Mortality results for randomized controlled trial of early elective surgery or ultrasonographic surveillance for small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Lancet. 1998; 352: 1649–1655.

Vallabhaneni

Harris

. Lessons learnt from the EUROSTAR registry on endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur J Radiol. 2001; 39: 34–41.

Thomas

Gaines

Beard

. Short-term (30-day) outcome of endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurism: Results from the prospective Registry of Endovascular Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurism (RETA). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2001; 21: 57–64.

van Marrewijk

Buth

Harris

. Significance of endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: The EUROSTAR experience. J Vasc Surg. 2002; 35: 461–473.

Prinssen

Buskens

Blankensteijn

. The Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trial. Background, design and methods. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2002; 43: 379–384.

Brown

Epstein

Manca

. The UK endovascular repair (EVAR) trials: Design, methodology and progress. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2004; 27: 372–381.

Prinssen

Verhoeven

Buth

. A randomized trial comparing conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 1607–1618.

Greenhalgh

Brown

Kwong

. Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1), 30-day operative mortality results: Randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004; 364: 843–848.

Blankensteijn

de Jong

Prinssen

. Two-year outcomes after conventional or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352: 2398–2405.

10.

EVAR trial participants. Endovascular aneurysm repair versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1): Randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005; 365: 2179–2186.

11.

Baas

de Jong

Prinssen

. The benefit of EVAR: Role of age. In: Branchereau

Jacobs

, eds. Vascular Procedures in the Elderly. Oxford: Paris Consultants Ltd.; 2006: 95–104.