Systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular events after endovascular aneurysm repair vs open surgical repair

Catherine Boudreau MD , Graham McClure MD, MSc , Julien D’Astous MD , Kamil Polok MD, PhD , Jakub Fronczek MD, PhD , Augustin Toma MD , Stephen Yang MD, MSc , Fadi Elias MD, MSc , Wojciech Szczeklik MD, PhD , Emmanuelle Duceppe MD, PhD
{"title":"Systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular events after endovascular aneurysm repair vs open surgical repair","authors":"Catherine Boudreau MD ,&nbsp;Graham McClure MD, MSc ,&nbsp;Julien D’Astous MD ,&nbsp;Kamil Polok MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Jakub Fronczek MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Augustin Toma MD ,&nbsp;Stephen Yang MD, MSc ,&nbsp;Fadi Elias MD, MSc ,&nbsp;Wojciech Szczeklik MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Emmanuelle Duceppe MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jvsvi.2025.100208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown a reduction in short-term mortality with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open surgical repair (OSR) but failed to demonstrate a long-term mortality advantage. Our study aims to determine whether this loss of mortality benefit could be attributed to differences in cardiovascular events.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for RCTs comparing EVAR and OSR for abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment. Title and abstracts, full texts, and study quality were assessed by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for RCTs. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random-effects method, and heterogeneity was assessed using the <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> statistics.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Our search identified 5204 manuscripts, of which 99 full texts were screened, and 40 manuscripts included. Nine individual RCTs met the eligibility criteria. Inter-rater agreement was excellent for final study inclusion (<em>k</em> = 0.88). Overall, the risk of bias was low. Patients treated with EVAR had a significantly lower short-term mortality (RR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.43-0.99). The totality of evidence on cardiovascular mortality (3 studies; 1265 patients, RR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.16-2.25) did not rule out large differences in mortality in either direction. There were no statistically significant differences in long-term all-cause mortality (6 studies; 3436 patients, RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.95-1.06) and cardiovascular mortality (4 studies; 3097 patients, RR 1.09, 95% CI: 0.92-1.30), although for the later, the point estimate shifted in the other direction.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Postoperative cardiovascular complications are frequent after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, and most events are asymptomatic. More data are needed to inform whether the loss of mortality benefit at long-term follow-up with EVAR compared with OSR could be explained by prognostically important undetected cardiac events.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74034,"journal":{"name":"JVS-vascular insights","volume":"3 ","pages":"Article 100208"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JVS-vascular insights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S294991272500025X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown a reduction in short-term mortality with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open surgical repair (OSR) but failed to demonstrate a long-term mortality advantage. Our study aims to determine whether this loss of mortality benefit could be attributed to differences in cardiovascular events.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for RCTs comparing EVAR and OSR for abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment. Title and abstracts, full texts, and study quality were assessed by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for RCTs. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random-effects method, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistics.

Results

Our search identified 5204 manuscripts, of which 99 full texts were screened, and 40 manuscripts included. Nine individual RCTs met the eligibility criteria. Inter-rater agreement was excellent for final study inclusion (k = 0.88). Overall, the risk of bias was low. Patients treated with EVAR had a significantly lower short-term mortality (RR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.43-0.99). The totality of evidence on cardiovascular mortality (3 studies; 1265 patients, RR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.16-2.25) did not rule out large differences in mortality in either direction. There were no statistically significant differences in long-term all-cause mortality (6 studies; 3436 patients, RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.95-1.06) and cardiovascular mortality (4 studies; 3097 patients, RR 1.09, 95% CI: 0.92-1.30), although for the later, the point estimate shifted in the other direction.

Conclusions

Postoperative cardiovascular complications are frequent after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, and most events are asymptomatic. More data are needed to inform whether the loss of mortality benefit at long-term follow-up with EVAR compared with OSR could be explained by prognostically important undetected cardiac events.
血管内动脉瘤修复与开放手术修复后心血管事件的系统回顾和荟萃分析
目的随机对照试验(RCT)显示,与开放性手术修复(OSR)相比,血管内动脉瘤修复(EVAR)可降低短期死亡率,但未能显示长期死亡率的优势。我们的研究旨在确定这种死亡率优势的丧失是否可归因于心血管事件的差异。方法我们检索了MEDLINE、PubMed、Embase和Web of Science中比较EVAR和OSR治疗腹主动脉瘤的RCT。由两名独立审稿人对标题和摘要、全文以及研究质量进行评估。采用 Cochrane 协作工具评估 RCT 的偏倚风险。采用随机效应法计算汇总风险比 (RR) 及 95% 置信区间 (CI),并采用 I2 统计法评估异质性。其中有 9 项研究符合资格标准。对于最终纳入的研究,评分者之间的一致性非常好(k = 0.88)。总体而言,偏倚风险较低。接受EVAR治疗的患者短期死亡率明显较低(RR:0.65,95% CI:0.43-0.99)。有关心血管死亡率的全部证据(3 项研究;1265 名患者,RR:0.61,95% CI:0.16-2.25)均不能排除死亡率存在较大差异的可能性。在长期全因死亡率(6 项研究;3 436 名患者,RR:1.00,95% CI:0.95-1.06)和心血管死亡率(4 项研究;3097 名患者,RR 1.09,95% CI:0.92-1.30)方面没有统计学意义上的显著差异,尽管后者的点估计值向另一个方向移动。需要更多的数据来说明,与OSR相比,EVAR在长期随访中丧失的死亡率益处是否可以用预后重要的未发现的心脏事件来解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信