A comparison of endovascular versus open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm – Meta-analysis of propensity score-matched data

Abstract

Background

Optimal management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) has been heavily debated in the literature. The aim of this review is to assess comparative outcomes from propensity-matched studies of endovascular versus open for rAAA.

Methods

Electronic databases (MEDLINE and Embase) were searched in January 2021 using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface. Eligible studies compared endovascular versus open repair for rAAA using propensity-matched cohorts. Pooled estimates of perioperative outcomes were calculated using odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model. Time-to-event data meta-analysis was conducted using the inverse-variance method and reported as summary hazard ratio (HR) and associated 95% CI. The quality of evidence was graded using a system developed by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group.

Results

Six studies published between 2010 and 2020 were selected for qualitative and quantitative synthesis, reporting a total of 6731 patients. The odds of perioperative mortality after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) were significantly lower than after open surgical repair (OSR) (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.41–0.65). The hazard of overall mortality during follow-up was lower, although not significantly, after EVAR than after OSR (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62–1.01). The odds of acute kidney injury and early aneurysm-related reintervention were both significantly lower after EVAR than after OSR (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14–0.78 and OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33–0.98, respectively). Patients treated with EVAR stayed in hospital for significantly less time than those treated with OSR (MD −5.13, 95% CI −7.94 to −2.32). The certainty of the body of evidence for perioperative mortality was low and for overall mortality was very low.

Conclusion

The evidence suggests that EVAR confers a significant benefit on perioperative mortality.

Keywords

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm propensity propensity-matched data open repair endovascular aneurysm repair

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Hoornweg

Storm-Versloot

Ubbink

, et al. Meta analysis on mortality of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008; 35: 558–570.

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.

Powell

Sweeting

Thompson

, et al. Endovascular or open repair strategy for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: 30 day outcomes from IMPROVE randomised trial. BMJ 2014; 348: f7661.

Reimerink

Hoornweg

Vahl

, et al. Endovascular repair versus open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2013; 258: 248–256.

Desgranges

Kobeiter

Katsahian

, et al. Editor’s Choice-ECAR (Endovasculaire ou Chirurgie dans les Anévrysmes aorto-iliaques Rompus): a French randomized controlled trial of endovascular versus open surgical repair of ruptured aorto-iliac aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2015; 50: 303–310.

Antoniou

Juszczak

Antoniou

, et al. Fenestrated or branched endovascular versus open repair for complex aortic aneurysms: meta-analysis of time to event propensity score matched data. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2021; 61: 228–237. DOI:10.1016/j.ejvs.2020.10.010.

Higgins

JPT

Thomas

Chandler

, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0. London, UK: Cochrane, 2019.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 1006–1012.

Wells

Shea

O’Connell

, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hosp. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (2019, accessed 26 February 2021).

10.

Antoniou

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

11.

Tierney

Stewart

Ghersi

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

12.

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.

13.

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. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-135.

14.

Deeks

Higgins

JPT

Altman

. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. London, UK: Cochrane Training, 2020.

15.

DerSimonian

Laird

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

16.

Edwards

Schermerhorn

O’Malley

, et al. Comparative effectiveness of endovascular versus open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in the Medicare population. J Vasc Surg 2014; 59: 575–582.

17.

Holt

PJE

Karthikesalingam

Poloniecki

, et al. Propensity scored analysis of outcomes after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Br J Surg 2010; 97: 496–503.

18.

Piffaretti

Mariscalco

Riva

, et al. Abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: long-term follow-up of endovascular versus open repair. Arch Med Sci 2014; 10: 273–282.

19.

Saqib

Park

, et al. Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm does not confer survival benefits over open repair. J Vasc Surg 2012; 56: 614–619.

20.

Speicher

Barbas

Mureebe

. Open versus endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg 2014; 28: 1249–1257.

21.

Wang

Locham

Al-Nouri

, et al. Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm is superior to open repair: propensity-matched analysis in the vascular quality initiative. J Vasc Surg 2020; 72: 498–507.

22.

Veith

Rockman

. The recent randomized trials of EVAR versus open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms are misleading. Vascular 2015; 23: 217–219.

23.

Littnerova

Jarkovsky

Parenica

, et al. Why to use propensity score in observational studies? Case study based on data from the Czech clinical database AHEAD 2006-09. Cor Vasa 2013; 55: e383–e390.

24.

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(5): 717–728

25.

Kontopodis

Galanakis

Antoniou

, et al. Meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis of outcomes of endovascular and open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2020; 59: 399–410.

26.

Kontopodis

Galanakis

Ioannou

, et al. Time-to-event data meta-analysis of late outcomes of endovascular versus open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. Epub ahead of print 2 April 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.03.019

27.

Patelis

Moris

Karaolanis

, et al. Endovascular vs. open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Med Sci Monit Basic Res 2016; 22: 34–44.

28.

Sweeting

Ulug

Powell

, et al. Ruptured aneurysm trials: the importance of longer-term outcomes and meta-analysis for 1-year mortality. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2015; 50: 297–302.

29.

Castagno

Varetto

Quaglino

, et al. Acute kidney injury after open and endovascular elective repair for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 2016; 64: 928–933.

30.

Sweeting

Balm

Desgranges

, et al. Individual-patient meta-analysis of three randomized trials comparing endovascular versus open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Br J Surg 2015; 102: 1229–1239.

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

0.46 MB