Long-Term Outcomes of Open Versus Endovascular Treatment for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online August, 2025
Long-Term Outcomes of Open Versus Endovascular Treatment for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data
The advent of endovascular techniques has revolutionized the care of patients with uncomplicated abdominal aortic aneurysms. This analysis compares the overall survival and the freedom from reintervention rate between open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular repair (EVAR) in patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.
Methods:
PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies including patients who underwent either OSR or EVAR for uncomplicated AAA. All randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched cohort studies reporting on the outcomes of interest were considered eligible for inclusion. The systematic search of the literature was performed by 2 independent investigators in accordance with the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. We conducted 1-stage and 2-stage meta-analyses with Kaplan-Meier-derived time-to-event data and meta-analysis with a random-effects model.
Results:
Thirteen studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 13 409 and 13 450 patients in the OSR and EVAR arms, respectively. Patients who underwent open repair had improved overall survival rates compared with those who underwent EVAR (hazard ratio [HR]=0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.88-0.98, p=0.004) during a mean follow-up of 53.8 (SD=29.8) months and this was validated by the 2-stage meta-analysis (HR=0.89, 95% CI=0.8-0.99, p=0.03, I2=62.25%). Splitting timepoint analysis suggested that EVAR offers better survival outcome compared with OSR in the first 11 months following elective intervention (HR=1.37, 95% CI=1.22-1.54, p<0.0001), while OSR offers a significant survival advantage after the 11-month timepoint and up to 180 months (HR=0.84, 95% CI=0.8-0.89, p<0.0001). Similarly, freedom from reintervention was found to be significantly better in EVAR patients (HR=1.28, 95% CI=1.14-1.44, p<0.0001) within the first 30 days. After the first month postrepair, however, OSR demonstrated higher freedom-from-reintervention rates compared with EVAR that remained significant for up to 168 months during follow-up (HR=0.73, 95% CI=0.66-0.79, p<0.0001).
Conclusions:
Despite the first-year survival advantage of EVAR in patients undergoing elective AAA repair, OSR was associated with a late survival benefit and decreased risk for reintervention in long-term follow-up.
Clinical Impact
Open surgical repair for uncomplicated abdominal aortic aneurysm offers better long-term outcomes in terms of survival and freedom from reintervention rate compared to the endovascular approach but in the first year it carries a higher risk of mortality. The novelty of our study lies that instead of comparing study-level effect estimates, we analyzed reconstructed individual patient-level data. This offered us the opportunity to perform our analyses with mathematically robust and flexible survival models, which was proved to be crucial since there was evidence of different hazard over time. Our findings underline the need for additional investigation to clarify the significance of open surgical repair when compared to the latest endovascular devices and techniques within the evolving era of minimally invasive procedures.
ChaikofELDalmanRLEskandariMK, et al. The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2018;67(1):2–77.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2017.10.044.
2.
WanhainenAVerziniFVan HerzeeleI, 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(1):8–93. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.09.020.
3.
GreenhalghRMBrownLCKwongGPS, et al. 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(9437):843–848. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16979-1.
4.
PrinssenMVerhoevenELGButhJ, et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(16):1607–1618. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa042002.
5.
LederleFAFreischlagJAKyriakidesTC, et al. Outcomes following endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1535–1542. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1426.
6.
BecqueminJPPilletJCLescalieF, et al. 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. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2010.10.124.
7.
De BruinJLBaasAFButhJ, et al. Long-term outcome of open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(20):1881–1889. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0909499.
8.
GreenhalghRMBrownLCPowellJT, et al. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(20):1863–1871. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0909305.
9.
SugimotoMKoyamaANiimiK, et al. Long-term comparison of endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: retrospective analysis of matched cohorts with propensity score. Ann Vasc Surg. 2017;43:96–103. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2017.01.011.
10.
MollFLPowellJTFraedrichG, et al. Management of abdominal aortic aneurysms clinical practice guidelines of the European society for vascular surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;41(suppl 1):S1–S58. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2010.09.011.
11.
PatelRSweetingMJPowellJT, et al. 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(10058):2366–2374. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31135-7.
12.
van SchaikTGYeungKKVerhagenHJ, et al. Long-term survival and secondary procedures after open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66:1379–1389. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2017.05.122.
13.
PowellJTSweetingMJUlugP, et al. Meta-analysis of individual-patient data from EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE trials comparing outcomes of endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm over 5 years. Br J Surg. 2017;104(3):166–178. doi:10.1002/bjs.10430.
14.
GiannopoulosSKokkinidisDGArmstrongEJ.Long-term outcomes of endovascular vs open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020;21(10):1253–1259. doi:10.1016/j.carrev.2020.02.015.
15.
AlOthmanOBobatS.Comparison of the short and long-term outcomes of endovascular repair and open surgical repair in the treatment of unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: meta-analysis and systematic review. Cureus. 2020;12(8):e9683. doi:10.7759/cureus.9683.
16.
LonjonGBoutronITrinquartL, et al. Comparison of treatment effect estimates from prospective nonrandomized studies with propensity score analysis and randomized controlled trials of surgical procedures. Ann Surg. 2014;259(1):18–25. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000000256.
17.
RileyRDLambertPCAbo-ZaidG.Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ. 2010;340:c221. doi:10.1136/bmj.c221.
18.
SimmondsMCHigginsJPStewartLA, et al. Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice. Clin Trials. 2005;2(3):209–217. doi:10.1191/1740774505cn087oa.
19.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
20.
WohlinC.Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering;May 2014; London. doi:10.1145/2601248.2601268.
HigginsJPTAltmanDGGøtzschePC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928.
23.
SterneJAHernánMAReevesBC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919
24.
HozoSPDjulbegovicBHozoI.Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:13. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-5-13.
25.
WanXWangWLiuJ, 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. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-135.
26.
GuyotPAdesAEOuwensMJNMWeltonNJ.Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:9. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-9.
27.
WeiYRoystonP.Reconstructing time-to-event data from published Kaplan-Meier curves. Stata J. 2017;17(4):786–802.
28.
LambertPCRoystonP.Further development of flexible parametric models for survival analysis. Stata J. 2009;9(2):265–290. doi:10.1177/1536867X0900900206.
29.
RoystonPParmarMKB. Flexible parametric proportional-hazards and proportional-odds models for censored survival data, with application to prognostic modelling and estimation of treatment effects. Stat Med. 2002;21(15):2175–2197. doi:10.1002/sim.1203.
30.
DerSimonianRLairdN.Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–188. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.
31.
LederleFAKyriakidesTCStroupeKT, et al. Open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(22):2126–2135. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1715955.
32.
SymonidesBŚliwczyńskiAGałązkaZ, et al. Short- and long-term survival after open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: Polish population analysis. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(6):e0198966. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0198966.
33.
MarkTLLawrenceWCoffeyRM, et al. The value of linking hospital discharge and mortality data for comparative effectiveness research. J Comp Eff Res. 2013;2(2):175–184. doi:10.2217/cer.13.4.
34.
HuangYGloviczkiPOderichGS, et al. Outcome after open and endovascular repairs of abdominal aortic aneurysms in matched cohorts using propensity score modeling. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62(2):304–311. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2015.02.039.
35.
SalataKHussainMADe MestralC, et al. Comparison of outcomes in elective endovascular aortic repair vs open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(7):1–14. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6578.
36.
MooreWSKashyapVSVesceraCL, et al. Abdominal aortic aneurysm: a 6-year comparison of endovascular versus transabdominal repair. Ann Surg. 1999;230(3):298–306; discussion 306. doi:10.1097/00000658-199909000-00003.
37.
LeeHGClairDGOurielK.Ten-year comparison of all-cause mortality after endovascular or open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: a propensity score analysis. World J Surg. 2013;37(3):680–687. doi:10.1007/s00268-012-1863-y.
38.
SoulezGThérasseEMonfaredAA, et al. 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. doi:10.1097/01.RVI.0000167858.16223.D5.
39.
Arenas AzofraEIglesias IglesiasCCanga GonzalezC, et al. Midterm results of endovascular versus open surgical repair for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms in low surgical risk patients. J Vasc Surg. 2022;75(6):1897–1903. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2021.10.047.
40.
GreenhalghRMBrownLCEpsteinD, et al. Endovascular aneurysm repair versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1): randomized controlled trial. The Lancet. 2005;365(9478):2179–2186. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66627-5.
41.
GilesKALandonBECotterillP, 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(1):6–1213. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2010.08.051.
42.
de BruinJLVervloetMGBuimerMG, et al. Renal function 5 years after open and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair from a randomized trial. Br J Surg. 2013;100(11):1465–1470. doi:10.1002/bjs.9280.
43.
BrownLCThompsonSGGreenhalghRM, et al. Incidence of cardiovascular events and death after open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in the randomized EVAR trial 1. Br J Surg. 2011;98(7):935–942. doi:10.1002/bjs.7485.
44.
LederleFAFreischlagJAKyriakidesTC, et al. Long-term comparison of endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. New Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1988–1997. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1207481.
45.
BlankensteijnJDde Jong SECA PrinssenM, et al. Two-year outcomes after conventional or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. New Engl J Med. 2005;352(23):2398–2405. doi:10.1056/nejmoa051255.
46.
OrrNTDavenportDLMinionDJ, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes in endovascular versus open repair for juxtarenal and pararenal aortic aneurysms: a propensity-matched analysis. Vascular. 2017;25(4):339–345. doi:10.1177/1708538116681911.
47.
JohnsonMLBushRLCollinsTC, et al. Propensity score analysis in observational studies: outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Am J Surg. 2006;192(3):336–343. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.03.009.
48.
BannoHSugimotoMSatoT, et al. Endovascular aneurysm repair compared with open repair does not improve survival in octogenarians. Circ J. 2021;85(12):2166–2171. doi:10.1253/circj.CJ-21-0574.
49.
VarkevisserRRBSwerdlowNJDe GuerreLEMV, et al. Midterm survival after endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms is improving over time. J Vasc Surg. 2019;72:556–565.e6. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2019.10.082.
50.
SchermerhornMLGilesKASachsT, et al. Defining perioperative mortality after open and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the US Medicare population. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212(3):349–355. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.12.003.
51.
SchermerhornMLBuckDBO’MalleyAJ, et al. Long-term outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm in the Medicare population. New Engl J Med. 2015;373(4):328–338. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1405778.
52.
SchermerhornMLO’MalleyAJJhaveriA, et al. Endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the Medicare population. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(5):464–474. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0707348.
53.
EgorovaNNVouyoukaAGMcKinseyJF, et al. Effect of gender on long-term survival after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair based on results from the Medicare national database. J Vasc Surg. 2011;54(1):1. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2010.12.049.
54.
GilesKASchermerhornMLO’MalleyAJ, et al. Risk prediction for perioperative mortality of endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms using the Medicare population. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50(2):256–262. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2009.01.044.
55.
ShiCChenQ.Efficacy of unibody bifurcated endovascular stent-graft repair in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2019;29(5):444–447. doi:10.29271/jcpsp.2019.05.444.
56.
CuypersPWMGardienMButhJ, et al. Randomized study comparing cardiac response in endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Br J Surg. 2001;88(8):1059–1065. doi:10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01834.x.
57.
Budtz-LillyJVenermoMDebusS, et al. Editor’s choice—assessment of international outcomes of intact abdominal aortic aneurysm repair over 9 years. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017;54(1):13–20. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2017.03.003.
58.
ChangDCParinaRPWilsonSE.Survival after endovascular vs open aortic aneurysm repairs. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(12):1160–1166. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2015.2644.
59.
StatherPWSidloffDDattaniN, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the early and late outcomes of open and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic. Br J Surg. 2013;100:863–872. doi:10.1002/bjs.9101.
60.
AustinPC.The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Stat Med. 2014;33(7):1242–1258. doi:10.1002/sim.5984.
61.
IoannidisJPHaidichABPappaM, et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA. 2001;286(7):821–830. doi:10.1001/jama.286.7.821.
62.
SuckowBDGoodneyPPColumboJA, et al. National trends in open surgical, endovascular, and branched-fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in Medicare patients. J Vasc Surg. 2018;67(6):1690–1697. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2017.09.046.
63.
TrennerMRaduOZschäpitzD, et al. Can we still teach open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in the endovascular era? Single-center analysis on the evolution of procedural characteristics over 15 years. J Surg Educ. 2022;79(4):885–895. doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2022.01.010.
64.
DuaAKuySLeeCJ, et al. Epidemiology of aortic aneurysm repair in the United States from 2000 to 2010. J Vasc Surg. 2014;59(6):1512–1517. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2014.01.007.
65.
YokoyamaYKunoTTakagiH.Meta-analysis of phase-specific survival after elective endovascular versus surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm from randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies. J Vasc Surg. 2020;72(4):1464–1472. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2020.03.041.
66.
LiBKhanSSalataK, 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(3):954–969. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2019.01.076.
67.
DeerySEO’DonnellTFXBodewesTCF, et al. Early reintervention after open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is associated with high mortality. J Vasc Surg. 2018;67(2):433–440. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2017.06.104.
68.
JohalASLoftusIMBoyleJR, et al. Long-term survival after endovascular and open repair of unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Br J Surg. 2019;106(13):1784–1793. doi:10.1002/bjs.11215.
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.
