Predicting risk of rupture and rupture-preventing reinterventions following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and imaging surveillance practices following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) vary considerably and compliance with recommended lifelong surveillance is poor. The aim of this study was to develop a dynamic prognostic model to enable stratification of patients at risk of future secondary aortic rupture or the need for intervention to prevent rupture (rupture-preventing reintervention) to enable the development of personalized surveillance intervals. METHODS: Baseline data and repeat measurements of postoperative aneurysm sac diameter from the EVAR-1 and EVAR-2 trials were used to develop the model, with external validation in a cohort from a single-centre vascular database. Longitudinal mixed-effects models were fitted to trajectories of sac diameter, and model-predicted sac diameter and rate of growth were used in prognostic Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Some 785 patients from the EVAR trials were included, of whom 155 (19·7 per cent) experienced at least one rupture or required a rupture-preventing reintervention during follow-up. An increased risk was associated with preoperative AAA size, rate of sac growth and the number of previously detected complications. A prognostic model using predicted sac growth alone had good discrimination at 2 years (C-index 0·68), 3 years (C-index 0·72) and 5 years (C-index 0·75) after operation and had excellent external validation (C-index 0·76-0·79). More than 5 years after operation, growth rates above 1 mm/year had a sensitivity of over 80 per cent and specificity over 50 per cent in identifying events occurring within 2 years. CONCLUSION: Secondary sac growth is an important predictor of rupture or rupture-preventing reintervention to enable the development of personalized surveillance intervals. A dynamic prognostic model has the potential to tailor surveillance by identifying a large proportion of patients who may require less intensive follow-up.

Meta-analysis of individual-patient data from EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE trials comparing outcomes of endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm over 5 years.

BACKGROUND: The erosion of the early mortality advantage of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm remains without a satisfactory explanation. METHODS: An individual-patient data meta-analysis of four multicentre randomized trials of EVAR versus open repair was conducted to a prespecified analysis plan, reporting on mortality, aneurysm-related mortality and reintervention. RESULTS: The analysis included 2783 patients, with 14 245 person-years of follow-up (median 5·5 years). Early (0-6 months after randomization) mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (46 of 1393 versus 73 of 1390 deaths; pooled hazard ratio 0·61, 95 per cent c.i. 0·42 to 0·89; P = 0·010), primarily because 30-day operative mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (16 deaths versus 40 for open repair; pooled odds ratio 0·40, 95 per cent c.i. 0·22 to 0·74). Later (within 3 years) the survival curves converged, remaining converged to 8 years. Beyond 3 years, aneurysm-related mortality was significantly higher in the EVAR groups (19 deaths versus 3 for open repair; pooled hazard ratio 5·16, 1·49 to 17·89; P = 0·010). Patients with moderate renal dysfunction or previous coronary artery disease had no early survival advantage under EVAR. Those with peripheral artery disease had lower mortality under open repair (39 deaths versus 62 for EVAR; P = 0·022) in the period from 6 months to 4 years after randomization. CONCLUSION: The early survival advantage in the EVAR group, and its subsequent erosion, were confirmed. Over 5 years, patients of marginal fitness had no early survival advantage from EVAR compared with open repair. Aneurysm-related mortality and patients with low ankle : brachial pressure index contributed to the erosion of the early survival advantage for the EVAR group. Trial registration numbers: EVAR-1, ISRCTN55703451; DREAM (Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management), NCT00421330; ACE (Anévrysme de l'aorte abdominale, Chirurgie versus Endoprothèse), NCT00224718; OVER (Open Versus Endovascular Repair Trial for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms), NCT00094575.

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of endovascular versus open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm based on four randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: A number of published economic evaluations of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) have come to differing conclusions about whether EVAR is cost-effective. This paper reviews the current evidence base and presents up-to-date cost-effectiveness analyses in the light of results of four randomized clinical trials: EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE. METHODS: Markov models were used to estimate lifetime costs from a UK perspective and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on the results of each of the four trials. The outcomes included in the model were: procedure costs, surveillance costs, reintervention costs, health-related quality of life, aneurysm-related mortality and other-cause mortality. Alternative scenarios about complications, reinterventions and deaths beyond the trial were explored. RESULTS: Models based on the results of the EVAR-1, DREAM or ACE trials did not find EVAR to be cost-effective at thresholds used in the UK (up to £30,000 per QALY). EVAR seemed cost-effective according to models based on the OVER trial. These results seemed robust to alternative model scenarios about events beyond the trial intervals. CONCLUSION: These analyses did not find that EVAR is cost-effective compared with open repair in the long term in trials conducted in European centres. EVAR did appear to be cost-effective based on the OVER trial, conducted in the USA. Caution must be exercised when transferring the results of economic evaluations from one country to another.

Observations from the IMPROVE trial concerning the clinical care of patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Single-centre series of the management of patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are usually too small to identify clinical factors that could improve patient outcomes. METHODS: IMPROVE is a pragmatic, multicentre randomized clinical trial in which eligible patients with a clinical diagnosis of ruptured aneurysm were allocated to a strategy of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or to open repair. The influences of time and manner of hospital presentation, fluid volume status, type of anaesthesia, type of endovascular repair and time to aneurysm repair on 30-day mortality were investigated according to a prespecified plan, for the subgroup of patients with a proven diagnosis of ruptured or symptomatic AAA. Adjustment was made for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: Some 558 of 613 randomized patients had a symptomatic or ruptured aneurysm: diagnostic accuracy was 91·0 per cent. Patients randomized outside routine working hours had higher operative mortality (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1·47, 95 per cent confidence interval 1·00 to 2·17). Mortality rates after primary and secondary presentation were similar. Lowest systolic blood pressure was strongly and independently associated with 30-day mortality (51 per cent among those with pressure below 70 mmHg). Patients who received EVAR under local anaesthesia alone had greatly reduced 30-day mortality compared with those who had general anaesthesia (adjusted OR 0·27, 0·10 to 0·70). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the outcome of ruptured AAA might be improved by wider use of local anaesthesia for EVAR and that a minimum blood pressure of 70 mmHg is too low a threshold for permissive hypotension.

The UK EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) trials: randomised trials of EVAR versus standard therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) against standard alternative management in patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). DESIGN: Two national, multicentre randomised trials - EVAR trials 1 and 2. SETTING: Patients were recruited from 38 out of 41 eligible UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women aged at least 60 years, with an AAA measuring at least 5.5 cm on a computerised tomography scan that was regarded as anatomically suitable for EVAR, were assessed for fitness for open repair. Patients considered fit were randomised to EVAR or open repair in EVAR trial 1 and patients considered unfit were randomised to EVAR or no intervention in EVAR trial 2. INTERVENTIONS: EVAR, open repair or no intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was mortality (operative, all-cause and AAA related). Patients were flagged at the UK Office for National Statistics with centrally coded death certificates assessed by an Endpoints Committee. Power calculations based upon mortality indicated that 900 and 280 patients were required for EVAR trials 1 and 2, respectively. Secondary outcomes were graft-related complications and reinterventions, adverse events, renal function, health-related quality of life and costs. Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed for both trials. RESULTS: Recruitment occurred between 1 September 1999 and 31 August 2004, with targets exceeded in both trials: 1252 randomised into EVAR trial 1 (626 to EVAR) and 404 randomised into EVAR trial 2 (197 to EVAR). Follow-up closed in December 2009 with very little loss to follow-up (1%). In EVAR trial 1, 30-day operative mortalities were 1.8% and 4.3% in the EVAR and open-repair groups, respectively: adjusted odds ratio 0.39 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.87], p = 0.02. During a total of 6904 person-years of follow-up, 524 deaths occurred (76 AAA related). Overall, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of all-cause mortality: adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.03 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.23), p = 0.72. The EVAR group did demonstrate an early advantage in terms of AAA-related mortality, which was sustained for the first few years, but lost by the end of the study, primarily due to fatal endograft ruptures: adjusted HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.49), p = 0.73. The EVAR procedure was more expensive than open repair (mean difference £1177) and not found to be cost-effective, but the model was sensitive to alternative assumptions. In EVAR trial 2, during a total of 1413 person-years of follow-up, a total of 305 deaths occurred (78 AAA related). The 30-day operative mortality was 7.3% in the EVAR group. However, this group later demonstrated a significant advantage in terms of AAA-related mortality, but this became apparent only after 4 years: overall adjusted HR 0.53 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.89), p = 0.02. Sadly, this advantage did not result in any benefit in terms of all-cause mortality: adjusted HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.27), p = 0.97. Overall, EVAR was more expensive than no intervention (mean difference £10,222) and not found to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR offers a clear operative mortality benefit over open repair in patients fit for both procedures, but this early benefit is not translated into a long-term survival advantage. Among patients unfit for open repair, EVAR is associated with a significant long-term reduction in AAA-related mortality but this does not appear to influence all-cause mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 55703451. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 16, No. 9. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

Incidence of cardiovascular events and death after open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in the randomized EVAR trial 1.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to compare rates of myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular death in patients with a large abdominal aortic aneurysm who had endovascular (EVAR) or open repair to determine whether cardiovascular mortality explains the convergence in survival curves after these procedures. METHODS: Between 1999 and 2004, 1252 patients were randomized to EVAR or open repair in the UK EVAR trial 1. All patients were followed for death, myocardial infarction or stroke until September 2009. Cox regression was used to compare cardiovascular events and deaths between the randomized groups during different time intervals. RESULTS: Over 5 years of follow-up, a total of 187 first non-fatal or fatal cardiovascular events (98 myocardial infarctions and 89 strokes) and 256 cardiovascular deaths occurred. Although the endovascular group had a lower cardiovascular event rate than the open repair group (2·6 versus 3·2 per 100 person-years respectively) this was not statistically significant (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0·83, 95 per cent confidence interval 0·62 to 1·10; P = 0·199). Overall, there was little difference in cardiovascular mortality between the randomized groups (adjusted HR 1·06, 0·83 to 1·36; P = 0·638), but a non-significant excess of cardiovascular deaths was apparent in the endovascular group during the 6-24-month interval (adjusted HR 1·44, 0·79 to 2·62; P = 0·237). CONCLUSION: Patients who had EVAR appeared to have a lower subsequent cardiovascular event rate during all time intervals. Cardiovascular mortality was similar between the two groups overall, but more cardiovascular deaths in the EVAR group appeared to contribute to the convergence in all-cause mortality during the first 2 years.

Use of baseline factors to predict complications and reinterventions after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain which baseline factors are associated with graft-related complications and reinterventions after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with a large abdominal aortic aneurysm. METHODS: Patients randomized to elective EVAR in EVAR Trial 1 or 2 were followed for serious graft-related complications (type 2 endoleaks excluded) and reinterventions. Cox regression analysis was used to investigate whether any prespecified baseline factors were associated with time to first serious complication or reintervention. RESULTS: A total of 756 patients who had elective EVAR were followed for a mean of 3.7 years, by which time there were 179 serious graft complications (rate 6.5 per 100 person years) and 114 reinterventions (rate 3.8 per 100 person years). The highest rate was during the first 6 months, with an apparent increase again after 2 years. Multivariable analysis indicated that graft-related complications increased significantly with larger initial aneurysm diameter (P < 0.001) and older age (P = 0.040). There was also evidence that patients with larger common iliac diameters experienced higher complication rates (P = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Graft-related complication and reintervention rates were common after EVAR in patients with a large aneurysm. Younger patients and those with aneurysms closer to the 5.5-cm threshold for intervention experienced lower rates.

Does EVAR alter the rate of cardiovascular events in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm considered unfit for open repair? Results from the randomised EVAR trial 2.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) influences the rate of cardiovascular events (fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke) in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) considered unfit for open repair. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. MATERIALS: Between 1999 and 2004, 404 patients with large AAA considered unfit for open repair were randomised to EVAR or no surgical intervention across 33 UK hospitals and followed until July 2009. METHODS: The Customised Probability Index was used to determine fitness for each patient and Cox regression was used to compare time to first cardiovascular event between randomised groups and levels of fitness. RESULTS: During an average of 2.8 years of follow-up, 67 first cardiovascular events occurred with a non-significantly higher event rate in the EVAR group compared to the no intervention group (6.6 versus 5.1 events per 100 person years); adjusted hazard ratio 1.42 [95% CI 0.87-2.34], p=0.156. There was no evidence to suggest that the hazard ratio between randomised groups changed with level of fitness (p=0.378). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular event rates were high in these unfit patients and medical therapy was sub-optimal. Events rates were slightly higher in the EVAR group but this was not statistically significant.

Patient preference for surgical method of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: postal survey.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether men with small abdominal aortic aneurysm have a preference between either endovascular or open aneurysm repair for future treatment. DESIGN: Prospective study of self-declared treatment preference following receipt of a validated patient information pack. PARTICIPANTS: Men aged 65-84 years (n=237) with asymptomatic aneurysm (4.0-5.4 cm) detected by population-based screening. METHODS: An unbiased, validated patient information pack and questionnaire were developed to conduct a postal survey. RESULTS: One hundred sixty seven participants (70%) returned a completed questionnaire; 24 (10%) did not respond at all. Initially, only 38 (23%) declared a treatment preference. After reading the information pack, 130 participants (80%) declared a treatment preference: 30 preferred open repair (18%), 77 endovascular repair (46%), 23 were happy with either option (14%) and only 34 remained without any preference (20%). Nearly all (92%) thought that the information pack had prepared them well for future discussions with clinicians and with no single feature identified as influencing the preference-making process, 66 respondents (40%) still opted to 'take the advice of the doctor'. CONCLUSION: The patient information pack facilitated the development of treatment preferences with endovascular repair being preferred to open repair. Nevertheless for patient-centred care, vascular centres must continue to safely provide both open and endovascular repair.

Three-dimensional imaging core laboratory of the endovascular aneurysm repair trials: validation of methodology.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish and validate a three-dimensional imaging protocol for the assessment of Computed Tomography (CT) scans of abdominal aortic aneurysms in UK EVAR trials patients. Quality control and repeatability of anatomical measurements is important for the validity of any core laboratory. METHODS: Three different observers performed anatomical measurements on 50 preoperative CT scans of aortic aneurysms using the Vitrea 2 three-dimensional post-imaging software in a core laboratory setting. We assessed the accuracy of intra and inter observer repeatability of measurements, the time required for collection of measurements, 3 different levels of automation and 3 different automated criteria for measurement of neck length. RESULTS: None of the automated neck length measurements demonstrated sufficient accuracy and it was necessary to perform checking of the important automated landmarks. Good intra and limited inter observer agreement were achieved with three-dimensional assessment. Complete assessment of the aneurysm and iliacs took an average (SD) of 17.2 (4.1) minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic aneurysm anatomy can be assessed reliably and quickly using three-dimensional assessment but for scans of limited quality, manual checking of important landmarks remains necessary. Using a set protocol, agreement between observers is satisfactory but not as good as within observers.

The Immediate Management of the Patient with Rupture: Open Versus Endovascular repair (IMPROVE) aneurysm trial--ISRCTN 48334791 IMPROVE trialists.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews have suggested a survival advantage for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), who are managed by endovascular repair. These reviews are based on single centre experiences of selected patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a policy of endovascular repair improves the survival of all patients with ruptured AAA. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial, IMPROVE (ISRCTN 48334791) will randomize patients with a clinical diagnosis of rAAA, made in hospital, either to immediate CT scan and endovascular repair whenever anatomically suitable (endovascular first), or to open repair, with CT scan being optional (normal care), The trial is set on a background of guidelines for emergency care, CT scanning and anaesthesia, which incorporate the protocol of permissive hypotension. Recruitment started in October 2009 and 600 patients are required to show a 14% survival benefit at 30 days (primary outcome) for the endovascular first policy. Recruitment will be from the UK and Europe. Secondary outcomes include 24h, in-hospital and 1 year survival, complications, major morbidities, costs and quality of life. DISCUSSION: This is a "real life" trial that will answer the fundamental relevant clinical dilemma, namely, do patients who present with ruptured AAA derive benefit from treatment in a system, which offers a preferential strategy of endovascular repair? The trial addresses whether the anticipated reduced mortality and morbidity associated with endovascular repair is offset by the relatively greater ease of access and speed to conventional surgery. This issue is pivotal to future patient care and provision of services.

The adjuvant benefit of angioplasty in patients with mild to moderate intermittent claudication (MIMIC) managed by supervised exercise, smoking cessation advice and best medical therapy: results from two randomised trials for stenotic femoropopliteal and aortoiliac arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty exists on whether there is adjuvant benefit of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) over supervised exercise and best medical therapy in the treatment of intermittent claudication. METHODS: Patients with symptoms of stable mild to moderate intermittent claudication (MIMIC) were randomised in two multi-centre trials, for femoropopliteal and aortoiliac arterial disease, to receive either PTA or no PTA against a background of supervised exercise and best medical therapy and followed up for 24 months. Initial claudication distance (ICD) and absolute walking distance (AWD) on treadmill were compared between randomised groups adjusting for the corresponding measure at baseline. Secondary outcomes included ankle-brachial pressure index (ABPI) and quality of life. FINDINGS: A total of 93 patients were randomised into the femoropopliteal trial (48 into PTA) and 34 into the aortoiliac trial (19 to PTA). The mean (standard deviation, SD) age was 66(9) years for the femoropopliteal trial (63% male) and 63(9) for the aortoiliac trial (65% male). At 24 months, there were significant improvements in both AWD and ICD in the PTA groups for both trials. The adjusted AWD was 38% greater in the PTA group for the femoropopliteal trial (95%; CI 1-90) (p=0.04) and 78% greater in the PTA group for the aortoiliac trial (95%; CI 0-216) (p=0.05). Further benefits were demonstrated for ABPI but not for quality of life. INTERPRETATION: PTA confers adjuvant benefit over supervised exercise and best medical therapy in terms of walking distances and ABPI 24 months after PTA in patients with stable mild to moderate intermittent claudication.

Do abdominal aortic aneurysm necks increase in size faster after endovascular than open repair?

INTRODUCTION: Progression of aneurysmal disease in the aortic neck poses a threat to durable abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. We tested the hypothesis that 2 years after AAA repair the size of the aortic neck increased more after endovascular (EVAR) than open repair. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For a subset of EVAR 1 trial patients, true outer-wall area at three levels of the aortic neck was measured using a Vitrea2 workstation, and rate of change over 2 years analysed. RESULTS: The 67 EVAR patients and 56 open repair patients were well-matched, very similar to the total EVAR 1 cohort. The mean area change over 2 years at the superior mesenteric artery was small for both groups. However at the caudal renal artery (CRA), adjusted regression coefficient was 0.68 cm(2)/y greater after EVAR (p<0.001) and 0.77 cm(2)/y at a level 15 mm distal to it (p<0.001). The area at the CRA of 45 available post-procedure scans showed a large proportion of the increase had occurred by 3 months (mean 4.8 cm(2) to 5.9 cm(2) versus 6.7 cm(2) at 2 years). CONCLUSIONS: The increase in aortic neck size was much greater 2 years after EVAR versus open repair. Further research is ongoing to establish whether the dilatation is progressive after stent-graft placement.

Modelling the long-term cost-effectiveness of endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized trials have shown that endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has a 3 per cent aneurysm-related survival benefit in patients fit for open surgery, but it also has uncertain long-term outcomes and higher costs. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of EVAR. METHODS: A decision model was constructed to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with EVAR and open repair in men aged 74 years. The model includes the risks of death from aneurysm, other cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular causes, secondary reinterventions and non-fatal cardiovascular events. Data were taken largely from the EVAR trial 1 and supplemented from other sources. RESULTS: Under the base-case (primary) assumptions, EVAR cost 3800 pounds sterling (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 2400 pounds sterling to 5200 pounds sterling) more per patient than open repair but produced fewer lifetime QALYs (mean -0.020 (95 per cent c.i. -0.189 to 0.165)). These results were sensitive to alternative model assumptions. CONCLUSION: EVAR is unlikely to be cost-effective on the basis of existing devices, costs and evidence, but there remains considerable uncertainty.

Secondary interventions and mortality following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: device-specific results from the UK EVAR trials.

OBJECTIVES: To compare secondary intervention rate, aneurysm-related mortality and all-cause mortality for patients receiving elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for large abdominal aortic aneurysms with different commercially available endografts. DESIGN, MATERIALS & METHODS: In the EVAR 1 and 2 multi-centre trials, the principal endografts used were Zenith and Talent and these are compared in 505 patients from EVAR 1 and 143 patients from EVAR 2 followed-up for an average of 3.8 years until 31st December 2005. Outcomes were analysed by Cox proportional hazards regression, with adjustments for potential confounding risk factors and centre. Gore/Excluder graft outcomes also are reported. RESULTS: Across the two trials the secondary intervention rates were 7.0 and 9.4 per 100 patient years for Zenith and Talent grafts respectively, adjusted hazard ratio 0.77 [95%CI 0.52-1.12]. Aneurysm-related mortality was 1.2 and 1.4 per 100 patient years for Zenith and Talent grafts respectively, adjusted hazard ratio 0.90 [95%CI 0.37-2.19]. All-cause mortality was 8.5 and 10.3 per 100 patient years for Zenith and Talent grafts respectively, adjusted hazard ratio 0.81 [95%CI 0.58-1.14]. The direction of all results was similar when the two trials were analysed separately. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in the performance of the two endografts but the direction of results was slightly in favour of patients with Zenith (versus Talent) endografts.

Final 12-year follow-up of surgery versus surveillance in the UK Small Aneurysm Trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to determine whether early open surgical repair would benefit patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm compared with surveillance on long-term follow-up. METHODS: The 1090 patients who were enrolled into the UK Small Aneurysm Trial between 1991 and 1995 were followed up for aneurysm repair and mortality until November 2005. RESULTS: By November 2005, 714 patients (65.5 per cent) had died, 929 (85.2 per cent) had undergone aneurysm repair, 150 (13.8 per cent) had died without aneurysm repair and 11 (1.0 per cent) remained alive without aneurysm repair. After 12 years, mortality in the surgery and surveillance groups was 63.9 and 67.3 per cent respectively, unadjusted hazard ratio 0.90 (P = 0.139). Three-quarters of the surveillance group eventually had aneurysm repair, with a 30-day elective mortality of 6.3 per cent (versus 5.0 per cent in the early surgery group, P = 0.366). Estimates suggested that the cost of treatment was 17 per cent higher in the early surgery group, with a mean difference of 1326 pounds. The death rate in these patients was about twice that in the population matched for age and sex. CONCLUSION: There was no long-term survival benefit of early elective open repair of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Even after successful aneurysm repair, the mortality among these patients was higher than in the general population.

Patient fitness and survival after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in patients from the UK EVAR trials.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to use a validated fitness score to determine whether fitter patients with a large abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) benefited from having open rather than endovascular repair. METHODS: The Customized Probability Index (CPI) was applied to patients in the Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) I and II trials. Interaction tests between CPI and randomized group assessed the effect of fitness and type of AAA repair on elective 30-day mortality and 4-year survival. RESULTS: The mean(s.d.) CPI scores were 3.6(9.3) for 1252 EVAR I patients and 10.0(11.3) for 404 EVAR II patients (range - 25 to + 43) (P < 0.001). The fitness of EVAR I patients was classified as good (579 patients, mean CPI - 4.2), moderate (331 patients, mean CPI 5.7) or poor (338 patients, mean CPI 15.1). Only in the good fitness group did 30-day mortality convincingly favour endovascular repair (odds ratio 0.24, P = 0.030), but overall the test of interaction was not significant (P = 0.363). For 4-year all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality, there was no benefit for either treatment across all fitness scores (P = 0.281 and P = 0.371 respectively). CONCLUSION: The benefit of endovascular repair was most convincing in the fittest patients. There was no evidence that the fittest patients benefited more from open surgery.