Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2008;4(5):1011-22.
doi: 10.2147/vhrm.s3810.

Effects of study design and trends for EVAR versus OSR

Robert Hopkins  1 , James Bowen, Kaitryn Campbell, Gord Blackhouse, Guy De Rose, Teresa Novick, Daria O'Reilly, Ron Goeree, Jean-Eric Tarride
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Effects of study design and trends for EVAR versus OSR

Robert Hopkins et al. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2008.

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate if study design factors such as randomization, multi-center versus single center evidence, institutional surgical volume, and patient selection affect the outcomes for endovascular repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR). Finally, we investigate trends over time in EVAR versus OSR outcomes.

Methods: Search strategies for comparative studies were performed individually for: OVID's MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HAPI, and Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews (including Cochrane DSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE and CCTR), limited to 1990 and November 2006.

Results: Identified literature: 84 comparative studies pertaining to 57,645 patients. These include 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), plus 2 RCTs with long-term follow-up. The other 78 comparative studies were nonrandomized with 75 reporting perioperative outcomes, of which 16 were multi-center, and 59 single-center studies. Of the single-center studies 31 were low-volume and 28 were high-volume centers. In addition, 5 studies had all patients anatomically eligible for EVAR, and 8 studies included high-risk patients only. Finally, 25 long term observational studies reported outcomes up to 3 years.

Outcomes: Lower perioperative mortality and rates of complications for EVAR versus OSR varied across study designs and patient populations. EVAR adverse outcomes have decreased in recent times.

Conclusion: EVAR highlights the problem of performing meta-analysis when the experience evolves over time.

Keywords: abdominal aortic aneurysm; endovascular repair; meta-analysis; open surgical repair; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
QUORUM diagram.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Aarts F, van Sterkenburg S, Blankensteijn JD. Endovascular aneurysm repair versus open aneurysm repair: comparison of treatment outcome and procedure-related reintervention rate. Ann Vasc Surg. 2005;19:699–704. - PubMed
    1. Aho PS, Niemi T, Lindgren L, et al. Endovascular vs open AAA repair: Similar effects on renal proximal tubular function. Scand J Surg. 2004;93:52–6. - PubMed
    1. Akkersdijk GJM, Prinssen M, Blankensteijn JD. The impact of endovascular treatment on in-hospital mortality following non-ruptured AAA repair over a decade: A population based study of 16,446 patients. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2004;28:41–6. - PubMed
    1. Anderson PL, Arons RR, Moskowitz AJ, et al. A statewide experience with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: Rapid diffusion with excellent early results. J Vasc Surg. 2004;39:10–9. - PubMed
    1. Angle N, Dorafshar AH, Moore WS, et al. Open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: What does each really cost? Ann Vasc Surg. 2004;18:612–18. - PubMed

MeSH terms