A new randomized controlled trial on abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is needed

Abstract

Guidelines from societies are based on selected literature and scientific evidence preferably derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Recent Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines 1 Chaikof E.L. Dalman R.L. Eskandari M.K. Jackson B. Lee W.A. Mansour A. et al. The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2018; 67: 2-77.e2 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (957) Google Scholar on the care of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) recommend an assessment of operative risk and life expectancy in contemplating open repair or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using the patients' Vascular Quality Initiative perioperative mortality risk score (level 2, evidence C). The European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines 2 Wanhainen A. Verzini F. Van Herzeele I. Allaire E. Bown M. Cohnert T. et al. European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2019 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-iliac Artery Aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019; 57 ([published correction appears in Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2020;59:494]): 8-93 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (957) Google Scholar recommend that in most patients with suitable anatomy and reasonable life expectancy, EVAR should be considered the preferred treatment modality (recommendation 60, class IIa; evidence level B). However, in patients with long life expectancy, these guidelines recommend that open surgical repair (OSR) of AAA should be considered the preferred treatment modality (recommendation 61, class IIa, evidence level B). These recommendations are based on previous RCTs comparing OSR with EVAR for AAA. 3 EVAR Trial ParticipantsEndovascular aneurysm repair versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1): randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005; 365: 2179-2186 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1314) Google Scholar , 4 Prinssen M. Verhoeven E.L. Buth J. Cuypers P.W. van Sambeek M.R. Balm R. et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 1607-1618 Crossref PubMed Scopus (1634) Google Scholar , 5 Becquemin J.P. The ACE trial: a randomized comparison of open versus endovascular repair in good risk patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2009; 50: 222-224 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar , 6 Lederle F.A. Freischlag J.A. Kyriakides T.C. Padberg Jr., F.T. Matsumura J.S. Kohler T.R. et al. Outcomes following endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2009; 302: 1535-1542 Crossref PubMed Scopus (837) Google Scholar New randomized controlled trials for abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment should focus on younger, good-risk patientsJournal of Vascular SurgeryVol. 73Issue 6PreviewIn their editorial, Spanos et al1 concluded that new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to compare endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with open surgical repair (OSR). They observed that current surgical society guidelines depend on outdated RCTs showing perioperative superiority for EVAR that is lost during the long-term follow-up period. The shortcomings of those trials included the learning curve in the early days of EVAR, evolving approaches to reintervention, and advances in technology leading to improvements in EVAR durability. Full-Text PDF