ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to provide an up-to-date meta-analysis on the short- and long-term mortality rates of elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) via the open and endovascular approaches. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, conference proceeding from major vascular meetings were searched for randomized trials comparing open vs elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of AAAs. A random-effects model was used for analysis. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of open vs EVAR were calculated for short- and long-term mortality and reintervention rates. RESULTS: The analysis encompassed four randomized controlled trials with a total of 2783 patients. The open repair group resulted in significantly increased 30-day postoperative all-cause mortality compared with EVAR repair group (3.2% vs 1.2%; RR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.60-4.94); however, there is no statistical difference in the long-term all-cause mortality between both groups (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.86-1.10). Interestingly, fewer patients underwent reintervention procedures in the open repair group compared with those who had EVAR repair (9.3% vs 18.9%; RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.40-0.60), but this finding is doubtful due to the large heterogeneity. Lastly, no statistical difference in long-term mortality rates attributable to cardiovascular disease (CVD), aneurysm related, or stroke were found between the two types of repair. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that the 30-day all-cause mortality rate is higher with open than with EVAR repair; however, there is no statistical difference in the long-term all-cause and cause-specific mortality between both groups. The reintervention rate attributable to procedural complication was higher in the EVAR group. Because of the equivalency of long-term outcomes and the short-term benefits of EVAR, an endovascular-first approach to AAAs can be supported by the meta-analysis.