Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in the Young

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate which treatment method for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), endovascular or open repair, has better outcomes in young patients. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify observational studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared endovascular and open repair of intact AAA in young patients. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched up to March 2022 using the Ovid interface. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), with a maximum score of 9, or version 2 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The certainty of evidence was assessed with the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were perioperative, overall, and aneurysm-related mortality. Secondary outcomes were reintervention, hospital length of stay, and perioperative complications. Effect measures in syntheses were the odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD), mean difference (MD), or hazard ratio (HR) and were calculated with the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance statistical method and random-effects models. Results: Fifteen observational studies and 1 RCT were included, reporting a total of 48 976 young patients. Definitions of young ranged from 60 to 70 years. The median score on the NOS was 8 (range: 4-9), and the RCT was judged to be high risk of bias. The perioperative mortality was lower after EVAR (RD: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.02 to -0.00), but the overall and aneurysm-related mortality was not significantly different between EVAR and open repair (HR: 1.38, 95% CI: 0.81 to 2.33; HR: 4.68, 95% CI: 0.71 to 31.04, respectively), as was the hazard of reintervention (HR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.88 to 2.56). The hospital length of stay was shorter after EVAR (MD: -4.44 days, 95% CI: -4.79 to -4.09), and the odds of cardiac (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.35), respiratory (OR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.26), and bleeding complications were lower after EVAR (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.64). The level of evidence was low or very low. Conclusion: Patient preferences and perspectives should be considered during shared decision-making process considering the available evidence. EVAR may be considered in young and fit patients with a suitable anatomy. Protocol registration: PROSPERO, CRD42022325051 Clinical Impact Uncertainty surrounds the optimal treatment strategy for abdominal aortic aneurysm in young patients. Meta-analysis of some 48,976 young patients showed that endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has a lower perioperative mortality and morbidity and a shorter hospital and intensive care unit stay than open surgical repair, but the overall and aneurysm-related mortality in the short to medium term are not significantly different between EVAR and open repair. EVAR can be considered in young patients.

Automated summary

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of endovascular repair and open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in young patients. A systematic review including observational studies and randomized controlled trials was conducted. The results showed that endovascular repair had lower perioperative mortality, shorter hospital stay, and lower complication risks compared to open repair. It can be considered as a treatment option for young patients with suitable anatomy.