File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Systematic review of clinical trials comparing open and endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm

TitleSystematic review of clinical trials comparing open and endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm
Authors
KeywordsAneurysmorrhaphy
Aortic aneurysm
Endovascular
Morbidity
Mortality
Issue Date2006
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ASH
Citation
Surgical Practice, 2006, v. 10 n. 1, p. 24-37 How to Cite?
AbstractObjective: Endovascular repair (EVAR) using stent-graft device is a new treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) that is gaining more and more popularity. This systematic review compares the new minimally invasive endovascular treatment with the conventional open repair aiming to provide more evidence for clinical decision on choice of treatment for aneurysm patients. Methods: Electronic search on MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library and manual search on bibliographies was performed to identify studies published from 1991 to 2004 comparing clinical outcomes of patients who underwent EVAR and open repair. Quality of clinical studies was assessed by modified Evans and Pollok score and those scores below 50 were excluded. Systematic analysis was performed for short-, mid- and long-term clinical outcomes. The effect size of the clinical parameters was estimated by relative risk, weighted mean difference and standard mean difference. Results: 27 clinical studies and 7226 patients were included in this systematic review. Three studies were randomized control studies and the rest were comparative studies. Systematic review showed patients after EVAR had significantly lower 30-day mortality, shorter hospital and intensive care unit stay, less blood loss or blood transfusion, fewer cardiac and respiratory complications, less colonic ischaemia, and fewer overall operative morbidities. But EVAR carried a significant higher frequency of early secondary procedures and graft-related complications. The 1-5-year mortality between the two groups was similar. Patients receiving EVAR required more late secondary procedures and the cost related to EVAR was higher. Systematic review on quality of life could not be performed as there was a large variation on method of measurement. Conclusion: EVAR offers significant benefit to aneurysm patients in the early postoperative period. However, it does not show an advantage over open repair in mid- and long-term outcome. Furthermore, EVAR might carry more morbidity and higher cost in the long term. Prospective randomized control studies focusing on long-term outcome of EVAR and open repair aneurysm patients as well as on studies on newer generation devices are needed to provide more information for clinical decisions. © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/147680
ISSN
2013 Impact Factor: 0.172
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.121
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHo, Pen_HK
dc.contributor.authorYiu, WKen_HK
dc.contributor.authorCheung, GCYen_HK
dc.contributor.authorCheng, SWKen_HK
dc.contributor.authorTing, ACWen_HK
dc.contributor.authorPoon, JTCen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2012-05-29T06:07:55Z-
dc.date.available2012-05-29T06:07:55Z-
dc.date.issued2006en_HK
dc.identifier.citationSurgical Practice, 2006, v. 10 n. 1, p. 24-37en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1744-1625en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/147680-
dc.description.abstractObjective: Endovascular repair (EVAR) using stent-graft device is a new treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) that is gaining more and more popularity. This systematic review compares the new minimally invasive endovascular treatment with the conventional open repair aiming to provide more evidence for clinical decision on choice of treatment for aneurysm patients. Methods: Electronic search on MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library and manual search on bibliographies was performed to identify studies published from 1991 to 2004 comparing clinical outcomes of patients who underwent EVAR and open repair. Quality of clinical studies was assessed by modified Evans and Pollok score and those scores below 50 were excluded. Systematic analysis was performed for short-, mid- and long-term clinical outcomes. The effect size of the clinical parameters was estimated by relative risk, weighted mean difference and standard mean difference. Results: 27 clinical studies and 7226 patients were included in this systematic review. Three studies were randomized control studies and the rest were comparative studies. Systematic review showed patients after EVAR had significantly lower 30-day mortality, shorter hospital and intensive care unit stay, less blood loss or blood transfusion, fewer cardiac and respiratory complications, less colonic ischaemia, and fewer overall operative morbidities. But EVAR carried a significant higher frequency of early secondary procedures and graft-related complications. The 1-5-year mortality between the two groups was similar. Patients receiving EVAR required more late secondary procedures and the cost related to EVAR was higher. Systematic review on quality of life could not be performed as there was a large variation on method of measurement. Conclusion: EVAR offers significant benefit to aneurysm patients in the early postoperative period. However, it does not show an advantage over open repair in mid- and long-term outcome. Furthermore, EVAR might carry more morbidity and higher cost in the long term. Prospective randomized control studies focusing on long-term outcome of EVAR and open repair aneurysm patients as well as on studies on newer generation devices are needed to provide more information for clinical decisions. © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.en_HK
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ASHen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofSurgical Practiceen_HK
dc.subjectAneurysmorrhaphyen_HK
dc.subjectAortic aneurysmen_HK
dc.subjectEndovascularen_HK
dc.subjectMorbidityen_HK
dc.subjectMortalityen_HK
dc.titleSystematic review of clinical trials comparing open and endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysmen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.emailYiu, WK: waikiyiu@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailCheng, SWK: wkcheng@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailPoon, JTC: tcjensen@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityYiu, WK=rp00311en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityCheng, SWK=rp00374en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityPoon, JTC=rp01603en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1744-1633.2006.00283.xen_HK
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-33644655803en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros115602-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-33644655803&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume10en_HK
dc.identifier.issue1en_HK
dc.identifier.spage24en_HK
dc.identifier.epage37en_HK
dc.publisher.placeAustraliaen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridHo, P=24469553100en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridYiu, WK=12763171700en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCheung, GCY=15052803300en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCheng, SWK=7404684779en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTing, ACW=7102858552en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridPoon, JTC=7005903722en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats