GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • Thompson, S G  (4)
  • 1
    In: British Journal of Surgery, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 104, No. 3 ( 2017-02-03), p. 166-178
    Abstract: 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 EVARversus 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.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0007-1323 , 1365-2168
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2017
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2006309-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Oxford University Press (OUP) ; 2008
    In:  British Journal of Surgery Vol. 95, No. 2 ( 2008-01-14), p. 183-190
    In: British Journal of Surgery, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 95, No. 2 ( 2008-01-14), p. 183-190
    Abstract: 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 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) £2400 to £5200) 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.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0007-1323 , 1365-2168
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2008
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2006309-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: BMJ, BMJ, Vol. 334, No. 7594 ( 2007-03-24), p. 624-
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0959-8138 , 1468-5833
    Language: English
    Publisher: BMJ
    Publication Date: 2007
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1479799-9
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Oxford University Press (OUP) ; 2014
    In:  British Journal of Surgery Vol. 101, No. 6 ( 2014-04-10), p. 623-631
    In: British Journal of Surgery, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 101, No. 6 ( 2014-04-10), p. 623-631
    Abstract: 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.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0007-1323 , 1365-2168
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2014
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2006309-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...