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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aortic aneurysms are associated with coronary artery ectasia (CAE). However, the relation between the extent of CAE and coronary blood flow in patients with aortic aneurysms is not fully understood. This study was undertaken to assess the angiographic characteristics and effects of the topographical extent of CAE on coronary blood flow in patients with aortic aneurysms. This study consisted of 93 consecutive patients with aortic aneurysms (AA group) and 79 patients without aortic aneurysms who had angiographically normal coronary arteries as the control group (Control group). Coronary flow velocity was determined using the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction frame count (TFC) and the topographical extent of CAE was assessed. In the AA group, 43 patients (46.2 %) had significant coronary artery stenosis and 37 patients (40.2 %) had diffuse CAE. TFC was significantly higher in the AA group than in the control group in all 3 coronary arteries. Furthermore, mean corrected TFC (CTFC) was significantly higher in the AA group than in the control group (40.1 ± 10.7 vs. 25.8 ± 6.5, p < 0.001). In the AA group, mean CTFC in patients with diffuse CAE was significantly higher than that in patients with segmental CAE (50.2 ± 8.7 vs. 33.6 ± 5.2, p < 0.001). The mean CTFC correlated positively with the topographical extent of CAE. Many patients with aortic aneurysms were accompanied with angiographic coronary artery stenosis and CAE. Furthermore, patients with aortic aneurysms had higher CTFC than those without aortic aneurysms and it was primarily driven by more frequent prevalence of diffuse CAE.
    Heart and vessels. 07/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess whether survival differences exist between patients undergoing immediate open repair vs surveillance with selective repair for 4.0- to 5.4-cm abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) and whether these differences vary by diameter, within sexes, or overall. The study cohort included 2226 patients randomized to immediate repair or surveillance for the UK Small Aneurysm Trial (September 1, 1991, through July 31, 1998; follow-up, 2.6-6.9 years) or the Aneurysm Detection and Management trial (August 1, 1992, through July 31, 2000; follow-up, 3.5-8.0 years). Survival differences were assessed with proportional hazard models, adjusted for a comprehensive array of clinical and nonclinical risk factors. Interaction between treatment and AAA size was added to the model to assess whether the effect of immediate open repair vs surveillance varied by AAA size. The adjusted analysis revealed no statistically significant survival difference between immediate open repair and surveillance patients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.18; mean follow-up time, 1921 days for both study groups). This lack of treatment effect persisted when men (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.21) and women (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.49-1.86) were examined separately and did not vary by AAA size (P=.39 for the entire cohort and P=.24 for women). Immediate open repair offered no significant survival benefit, even in patients with the largest AAAs and highest risk of rupture. Because recent trials failed to find a survival benefit of immediate endovascular repair over surveillance for small asymptomatic AAAs, our findings suggest that the gray area of first-line management for these patients should be resolved in favor of surveillance.
    Mayo Clinic Proceedings 09/2013; 88(9):910-9. · 5.79 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Adoption of healthcare innovations frequently outpaces the evidence of effectiveness. Endovascular repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms in the USA demonstrates how comparative effectiveness research without evidence-based reimbursement changes may fail to influence clinical practice. Randomized controlled trials for small abdominal aortic aneurysms demonstrate no lasting benefits of EVAR or open surgical repair (OSR) compared with surveillance, and for large abdominal aortic aneurysms demonstrate no lasting survival benefit of EVAR over OSR, and do show poorer durability and higher costs for EVAR. Nonetheless, >50% of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs in the USA use EVAR. Factors that may be driving the high use of EVAR include patient preference, surgeons' desire to appear 'up-to-date' in the procedures they offer, higher hourly surgeon reimbursement for EVAR than OSR, and the expansion of physician specialties able to perform abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from only vascular surgeons with OSR, to vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists/cardiologists with EVAR. By comparison, in Canada, where government health insurance restricts EVAR coverage to high surgical risk patients, only approximately 25% of abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs are performed using EVAR. Country-specific cost studies and a prospective population-based study collecting detailed clinical data to identify patient subgroups that truly benefit from a particular management strategy are needed to inform policy regarding EVAR availability and reimbursement.
    Journal of comparative effectiveness research. 01/2012; 1(1):31-44.


Available from