Open versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in the Elective and Emergent Setting in a Pooled Population of 37,781 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ISRN cardiology Pub Date : 2014-04-02 eCollection Date: 2014-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2014/149243
Dustin M Thomas, Edward A Hulten, Shane T Ellis, David M F Anderson, Nathan Anderson, Fiora McRae, Jamil A Malik, Todd C Villines, Ahmad M Slim
{"title":"Open versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in the Elective and Emergent Setting in a Pooled Population of 37,781 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Dustin M Thomas,&nbsp;Edward A Hulten,&nbsp;Shane T Ellis,&nbsp;David M F Anderson,&nbsp;Nathan Anderson,&nbsp;Fiora McRae,&nbsp;Jamil A Malik,&nbsp;Todd C Villines,&nbsp;Ahmad M Slim","doi":"10.1155/2014/149243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background. We evaluated the incidence of mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) in endovascular repair (EVAR) as compared to open aneurysm repair (OAR) in both elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA ) setting. Methods. We analyzed the rates of 30-day mortality, 30-day MI, and hospital length of stay (LOS) based on comparative observation and randomized control trials involving EVAR and OAR. Results. 41 trials compared EVAR to OAR with a total pooled population of 37,781 patients. Analysis of elective and ruptured AAA repair favored EVAR with respect to 30-day mortality with a pooled odds ratio of 0.19 (95% CI 0.17-0.20; I (2) = 88.9%; P < 0.001). There were a total of 1,835 30-day MI events reported in the EVAR group as compared to 2,483 events in the OAR group. The pooled odds ratio for elective AAA was 0.74 (95% CI 0.58-0.96; P = 0.02) in favor of EVAR. The average LOS was reduced by 296.75 hrs (95% CI 156.68-436.82 hrs; P < 0.001) in the EVAR population. Conclusions. EVAR has lower rates of 30-day mortality, 30-day MI, and LOS in both elective and ruptured AAA repair. </p>","PeriodicalId":73519,"journal":{"name":"ISRN cardiology","volume":"2014 ","pages":"149243"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2014/149243","citationCount":"43","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISRN cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/149243","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 43

Abstract

Background. We evaluated the incidence of mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) in endovascular repair (EVAR) as compared to open aneurysm repair (OAR) in both elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA ) setting. Methods. We analyzed the rates of 30-day mortality, 30-day MI, and hospital length of stay (LOS) based on comparative observation and randomized control trials involving EVAR and OAR. Results. 41 trials compared EVAR to OAR with a total pooled population of 37,781 patients. Analysis of elective and ruptured AAA repair favored EVAR with respect to 30-day mortality with a pooled odds ratio of 0.19 (95% CI 0.17-0.20; I (2) = 88.9%; P < 0.001). There were a total of 1,835 30-day MI events reported in the EVAR group as compared to 2,483 events in the OAR group. The pooled odds ratio for elective AAA was 0.74 (95% CI 0.58-0.96; P = 0.02) in favor of EVAR. The average LOS was reduced by 296.75 hrs (95% CI 156.68-436.82 hrs; P < 0.001) in the EVAR population. Conclusions. EVAR has lower rates of 30-day mortality, 30-day MI, and LOS in both elective and ruptured AAA repair.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

37,781例患者择期和急诊腹主动脉瘤开放与血管内修复:系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景。我们评估了在选择性腹主动脉瘤和破裂腹主动脉瘤(AAA)情况下,与开放式动脉瘤修复(OAR)相比,血管内修复(EVAR)的死亡率和心肌梗死(MI)发生率。方法。基于EVAR和OAR的比较观察和随机对照试验,我们分析了30天死亡率、30天MI和住院时间(LOS)的比率。结果:41项试验比较了EVAR和OAR,共纳入37,781例患者。选择性和破裂的AAA修复有利于EVAR的30天死亡率,合并优势比为0.19 (95% CI 0.17-0.20;I (2) = 88.9%;P < 0.001)。EVAR组共报告1,835例30天心肌梗死事件,而OAR组为2,483例。选择性AAA合并优势比为0.74 (95% CI 0.58-0.96;P = 0.02),有利于EVAR。平均LOS减少296.75小时(95% CI 156.68-436.82小时;P < 0.001)。结论。在选择性和破裂的AAA修复中,EVAR具有较低的30天死亡率、30天心肌梗死和LOS。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信