Is a randomized trial necessary to determine whether endovascular repair is the preferred management strategy in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms?

Abstract

Mortality rates following repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms have remained depressingly high over the last number of decades despite advances in anesthesia and perioperative care. Prior to the introduction of endovascular repair, refinements in surgical technique had been few and far between. It was not until fairly recently that we finally observed a reduction in mortality coinciding with the wider adoption of endovascular repair. So, the case is closed, right? Endovascular repair should be widely adopted in all suitable patients? Well, not exactly. The following debate centers around what level of evidence is required to answer this question. Frank Veith argues that we're already there. He was an early adopter and innovator of endovascular techniques and feels that we have enough information to widely adopt endovascular repair of ruptured aneurysms. Janet Powell and Robert Hinchliffe, innovators in their own right, feel that the generalizability and applicability of endovascular repair require further evaluation with a randomized trial. Both offer clear and reasoned arguments.