Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in the Young

Abstract

Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to investigate which treatment method for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), endovascular or open repair, has better outcomes in young patients.

Materials and Methods:

A systematic review was conducted to identify observational studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared endovascular and open repair of intact AAA in young patients. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched up to March 2022 using the Ovid interface. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), with a maximum score of 9, or version 2 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The certainty of evidence was assessed with the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were perioperative, overall, and aneurysm-related mortality. Secondary outcomes were reintervention, hospital length of stay, and perioperative complications. Effect measures in syntheses were the odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD), mean difference (MD), or hazard ratio (HR) and were calculated with the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance statistical method and random-effects models.

Results:

Fifteen observational studies and 1 RCT were included, reporting a total of 48 976 young patients. Definitions of young ranged from 60 to 70 years. The median score on the NOS was 8 (range: 4–9), and the RCT was judged to be high risk of bias. The perioperative mortality was lower after EVAR (RD: −0.01, 95% CI: −0.02 to −0.00), but the overall and aneurysm-related mortality was not significantly different between EVAR and open repair (HR: 1.38, 95% CI: 0.81 to 2.33; HR: 4.68, 95% CI: 0.71 to 31.04, respectively), as was the hazard of reintervention (HR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.88 to 2.56). The hospital length of stay was shorter after EVAR (MD: −4.44 days, 95% CI: −4.79 to −4.09), and the odds of cardiac (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.35), respiratory (OR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.26), and bleeding complications were lower after EVAR (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.64). The level of evidence was low or very low.

Conclusion:

Patient preferences and perspectives should be considered during shared decision-making process considering the available evidence. EVAR may be considered in young and fit patients with a suitable anatomy.

Protocol registration:

PROSPERO, CRD42022325051

Clinical Impact

Uncertainty surrounds the optimal treatment strategy for abdominal aortic aneurysm in young patients. Meta-analysis of some 48,976 young patients showed that endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has a lower perioperative mortality and morbidity and a shorter hospital and intensive care unit stay than open surgical repair, but the overall and aneurysm-related mortality in the short to medium term are not significantly different between EVAR and open repair. EVAR can be considered in young patients.

Keywords

abdominal aortic aneurysm endovascular aneurysm repair EVAR young

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chaikof

Dalman

Eskandari

, et al The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2018;67:2–77.e2.

Wanhainen

Verzini

Van Herzeele

, et al Editor’s choice—European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2019 clinical practice guidelines on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019;57:8–93.

Antoniou

Torella

. Editor’s choice—Endovascular vs. open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm: systematic review and meta-analysis of updated peri-operative and long term data of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020;59:385–397.

Khan

Salata

, et al A systematic review and meta-analysis of the long-term outcomes of endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2019;70:954–969.e30.

Patel

Sweeting

Powell

, et al; EVAR Trial Investigators. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in 15-years’ follow-up of the UK endovascular aneurysm repair trial 1 (EVAR trial 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388:2366–2374.

Lederle

Freischlag

Kyriakides

, et al; OVER Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group. Long-term comparison of endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1988–1997.

van Schaik

Yeung

Verhagen

, et al; DREAM Trial Participants. Long-term survival and secondary procedures after open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66:1379–1389.

Schermerhorn

O’Malley

Jhaveri

, et al Endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the Medicare population. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:464–474.

Giles

Landon

Cotterill

, et al Thirty-day mortality and late survival with reinterventions and readmissions after open and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in Medicare beneficiaries. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53:6–12,13.e1.

10.

Mani

Björck

Lundkvist

, et al Improved long-term survival after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Circulation. 2009;120:201–211.

11.

Higgins

JPT

Thomas

Chandler

, et al Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 6.0. London, England: Cochrane; 2019.

12.

Antoniou

Mani

. Enhancing the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vascular surgery: PRISMA 2020. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2021;62:664–666.

13.

Tierney

Stewart

Ghersi

, et al Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8:16.

14.

Antoniou

Smith

. A guide on meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes using aggregate data in vascular and endovascular surgery. J Vasc Surg. 2020;71:1002–1005.

15.

The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Date unknown. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed August 7, 2022.

16.

Higgins

JPT

Savović

Page

, et al. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Higgins

JPT

Thomas

Chandler

Cumpston

Page

Welch

(eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. http://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

17.

https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/. Accessed April 8, 2022.

18.

Antoniou

. The GRADE approach to appraising the evidence or how to increase the credibility of your research. Am J Surg. 2020;220:290–293.

19.

Hozo

Djulbegovic

Hozo

. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:13.

20.

Wan

Wang

Liu

, et al Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:135.

21.

DerSimonian

Laird

. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–188.

22.

Sterne

JAC

Sutton

Ioannidis

JPA

, et al Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002.

23.

Diehm

Tsoukas

Katzen

, et al Matched-pair analysis of endovascular versus open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in young patients at low risk. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19:645–651.

24.

Schwarze

Shen

Hemmerich

, et al Age-related trends in utilization and outcome of open and endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in the United States, 2001-2006. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50:722–729.e2.

25.

Gupta

Ramanan

Lynch

, et al Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm does not improve early survival versus open repair in patients younger than 60 years. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2012;43:506–512.

26.

Altaf

Abisi

Yong

, et al Mid-term results of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the young. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013;46:315–319.

27.

Sandford

Choke

Bown

, et al

What is the best option for elective repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm in a young fit patient?

Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;47:13–18.

28.

Schermerhorn

Buck

O’Malley

, et al Long-term outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm in the Medicare population. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:328–338.

29.

Lee

Tang

Dubois

, et al Durability and survival are similar after elective endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in younger patients. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:636–641.

30.

Sirignano

Speziale

Montelione

, et al Abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: results from a series of young patients. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:7893413.

31.

Liang

Reitz

Makaroun

, et al Comparable perioperative mortality outcomes in younger patients undergoing elective open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2018;67:1404–1409.e2.

32.

Lederle

Kyriakides

Stroupe

, et al; OVER Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group. Open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:2126–2135.

33.

Gallitto

Faggioli

Mascoli

, et al Long-term efficacy of EVAR in patients aged less than 65 years with an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm and favorable anatomy. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;67:283–292.

34.

Reitz

Liang

Xie

, et al Inferior mid-term durability with comparable survival for younger patients undergoing elective endovascular infrarenal versus open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;64:143–150.e1.

35.

Byun

Kwon

Kim

, et al Quality-adjusted life year comparison at medium term follow-up of endovascular versus open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in young patients. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0260690.

36.

Gibello

Verzini

Spalla

, et al Long-term outcomes of open and endovascular abdominal aortic repair in younger patients. Ann Vasc Surg. 2022;85:323–330. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2022.02.021.

37.

Varkevisser

RRB

Carvalho Mota

Swerdlow

, et al Long-term age-stratified survival following endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2022;76:899–907. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2022.03.867.

38.

Reise

Sheldon

Earnshaw

, et al Patient preference for surgical method of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: postal survey. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;39:55–61.

39.

Cieri

De Rango

Isernia

, et al Effect of stent graft model on aneurysm shrinkage in 1,450 endovascular aortic repairs. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013;46:192–200.

40.

Verzini

Isernia

De Rango

, et al Abdominal aortic endografting beyond the trials: a 15-year single-center experience comparing newer to older generation stent-grafts. J Endovasc Ther. 2014;21:439–447.

41.

Kontopodis

Antoniou

Georgakarakos

, et al Endovascular vs open aneurysm repair in the young: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endovasc Ther. 2015;22:897–904.

42.

Hsieh

Kan

Hsieh

, et al Improved outcomes from endovascular aortic repair in younger patients: towards improved risk stratification. Vascular. 2019;27:573–581.

43.

Kontopodis

Tavlas

Ioannou

, et al Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes of open and endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients with hostile vs. friendly aortic anatomy. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020;59:717–728.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

0.02 MB

0.06 MB

0.02 MB

0.01 MB