skip to content
Dovepress - Open Access to Scientific and Medical Research
View our mobile site

8852

Effects of study design and trends for EVAR versus OSR

Review

(2559) Views  (621) Full article downloads

Authors: Robert Hopkins, James Bowen, Kaitryn Campbell, Gord Blackhouse, Guy De Rose, et al

Published Date August 2008 Volume 2008:4(5) Pages 1011 - 1022
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/VHRM.S3810

Robert Hopkins1, James Bowen1, Kaitryn Campbell1, Gord Blackhouse4, Guy De Rose2,3, Teresa Novick2, Daria O’Reilly1,4, Ron Goeree1,4, Jean-Eric Tarride1,4

1Programs for the Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics; 2Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada; 3Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada; 4Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Purpose: To investigate if study design factors such as randomization, multi-centre versus single centre 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-centre, and 59 single-centre studies. Of the single-centre studies 31 were low-volume and 28 were high-volume centres. 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, open surgical repair, systematic review, meta-analysis








Readers of this article also read:

Profile of nelarabine: use in the treatment of T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Refinement of rigid-body protein–protein docking using backbone and side-chain minimization with a coarse-grained model
Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in recovered and persistent amblyopia
Deletion of PPAR-γ in immune cells enhances susceptibility to antiglomerular basement membrane disease
Detection of retinal changes in Parkinson's disease with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography
Editorial
Improvement of adenoviral vector-mediated gene transfer to airway epithelia by folate-modified anionic liposomes
Transferability of health technology assessments and economic evaluations: a systematic review of approaches for assessment and application
Health status, hospitalizations, day procedures, and physician costs associated with body mass index (BMI) levels in Ontario, Canada
A case of mitochondrial cardiomyopathy with restrictive transmitral filling pattern
  • Join ISVH

    Be part of the World's leading experts in vascular health by joining the International Society of Vascular Health (ISVH)

  • Testimonials

    "... I was impressed at the rapidity of publication from submission to final acceptance." Dr Edwin Thrower, PhD, Yale University