SynthesisBMJ open2016
Endovascular repair or open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: a Cochrane systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the management of major exsanguination.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2018Pooled it
- Clinical Outcomes of the "Endovascular Aneurysm Repair-First" Protocol for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A 10-Year Single-Center Retrospective Study.Annals of vascular diseases · 2026Article
- Comparison of In-Hospital Outcomes between Open Aneurysm Repair and Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using Japanese Administrative Data.Annals of vascular diseases · 2024Article
- Activated clotting time-guided heparinization during open AAA surgery: a pilot study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2024Article
- The Management of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: An Ongoing Challenge.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- A Comparison of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair and Open Repair for Ruptured Aortic Abdominal Aneurysms.Cureus · 2022Review
- Aortic Neck IFU Violations During EVAR for Ruptured Infrarenal Aortic Aneurysms are Associated with Increased In-Hospital Mortality.Annals of vascular surgery · 2021Article
- Immediate outcome of endovascular treatment of ruptured juxtarenal aneurysm with parallel stents.Jornal vascular brasileiro · 2021Article
- Early experiences of endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2019Article
- The Obsolete Maximum Diameter Criterion, the Evident Role of Biomechanical (Pressure) Indices, the New Role of Hemodynamic (Flow) Indices, and the Multi-Modal Approach to the Rupture Risk Assessment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.Annals of vascular diseases · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEmergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) may improve outcomes for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). The study aim was to compare the outcomes for eEVAR with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of RAAA.
settingA systematic review of relevant publications was performed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing eEVAR with open surgical repair for RAAA were included.
participants3 RCTs were included, with a total of 761 patients with RAAA.
interventionsMeta-analysis was performed with fixed-effects models with ORs and 95% CIs for dichotomous data and mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was short-term mortality. Secondary outcome measures included aneurysm-specific and general complication rates, quality of life and economic analysis.
resultsOverall risk of bias was low. There was no difference between the 2 interventions on 30-day (or in-hospital) mortality, OR 0.91 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.22; p=0.52). 30-day complications included myocardial infarction, stroke, composite cardiac complications, renal complications, severe bowel ischaemia, spinal cord ischaemia, reoperation, amputation and respiratory failure. Reporting was incomplete, and no robust conclusion was drawn. For complication outcomes that did include at least 2 studies in the meta-analysis, there was no clear evidence to support a difference between eEVAR and open repair. Longer term outcomes and cost per patient were evaluated in only a single study, thus precluding definite conclusions.
conclusionsOutcomes between eEVAR and open repair, specifically 30-day mortality, are similar. However, further high-quality trials are required, as the paucity of data currently limits the conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.