Endovascular repair compared with surveillance for patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysms

Division of Vascular Surgery, Columbia University and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter (Impact Factor: 2.98). 03/2010; 51(5):1081-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2009.10.113
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although repair of large abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is well accepted, randomized clinical trials have failed to demonstrate benefit for early surgical repair of small aneurysms compared with surveillance. Endovascular repair has been shown to be safer than open surgical repair in patients with large aneurysms, prompting a randomized trial of early endovascular repair vs surveillance in patients with small aneurysms.
We randomly assigned 728 patients (13.3% women; mean age, 71 +/- 8 years) with 4 to 5 cm AAAs to early endovascular repair (366 patients) or ultrasound surveillance (362 patients). Rupture or aneurysm-related death and overall mortality in the two groups were compared during a mean follow-up of 20 +/- 12 months.
Among patients randomized to treatment, 89% underwent aneurysm repair. Among patients randomized to surveillance, 31% underwent aneurysm repair during the course of the study. After a mean follow-up of 20 +/- 12 months (range, 0-41 months), 15 deaths had occurred in each group (4.1%). The unadjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for mortality after early endovascular repair was 1.01 (0.49-2.07, P = .98). Aneurysm rupture or aneurysm-related death occurred in two patients in each group (0.6%). The unadjusted hazard ratio was 0.99 (0.14-7.06, P = .99) for early endovascular repair.
Early treatment with endovascular repair and rigorous surveillance with selective aneurysm treatment as indicated both appear to be safe alternatives for patients with small AAAs, protecting the patient from rupture or aneurysm-related death for at least 3 years.

  • Source
    Edited by Daniel Fischhof , Franz Hatig,, 07/2013; Nova Science Publishers., ISBN: 978-1-62618-458-9
  • Article: Reply.
    Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter 05/2014; 59(5):1476-7. DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2014.01.012 · 2.98 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Women have been shown to have up to a fourfold higher risk of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture at any given aneurysm diameter compared with men, leading to recommendations to offer repair to women at lower diameter thresholds. Although this higher risk of rupture may simply reflect greater relative aortic dilatation in women who have smaller aortas to begin with, this has never been quantified. Our objective was therefore to quantify the relationship between rupture and aneurysm diameter relative to body size and determine whether a differential association between aneurysm diameter, body size, and rupture risk exists for men and women. We performed a retrospective review of all patients in the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) database who underwent endovascular or open AAA repair. Height and weight were used to calculate each patient's body mass index and body surface area (BSA). Next, indices of each measure of body size (height, weight, body mass index, BSA) relative to aneurysm diameter were calculated for each patient. To generate these indices, we divided aneurysm diameter (in cm) by the measure of body size; for example, aortic size index (ASI) = aneurysm diameter (cm)/BSA (m(2)). Along with other relevant clinical variables, we used these indices to construct different age-adjusted and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models to determine predictors of ruptured repair vs elective repair. Models for men and women were developed separately, and different models were compared using the area under the curve. We identified 4045 patients (78% male) who underwent AAA repair (53% endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs). Women had significantly smaller diameter aneurysms, lower BSA, and higher BSA indices than men. For men, the variable that increased the odds of rupture the most was aneurysm diameter (area under the curve = 0.82). Men exhibited an increased rupture risk with increasing aneurysm diameter (<5.5 cm: odds ratio [OR], 1.0; 5.5-6.4 cm: OR, 0.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-1.7; P = .771; 6.5-7.4 cm: OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.9-1.0; P < .001; ≥7.5 cm: OR, 11.3; 95% CI, 4.9-25.8; P < .001). In contrast, the variable most predictive of rupture in women was ASI (area under the curve = 0.81), with higher odds of rupture at a higher ASI (ASI >3.5-3.9: OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.7-24.1; P = .006; ASI ≥4.0: OR, 9.5; 95% CI, 2.3-39.4; P = .002). For women, aneurysm diameter was not a significant predictor of rupture after adjusting for ASI. Aneurysm diameter indexed to body size is the most important determinant of rupture for women, whereas aneurysm diameter alone is most predictive of rupture for men. Women with the largest diameter aneurysms and the smallest body sizes are at the greatest risk of rupture.
    Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter 12/2013; 59(5). DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2013.10.104 · 2.98 Impact Factor


1 Download
Available from