Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27055854›Full record

ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2016

Current treatment strategies for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Andreas S Peters, Maani Hakimi, Philipp Erhart, Michael Keese, Thomas Schmitz-Rixen, Markus Wortmann, Moritz S Bischoff, Dittmar Böckler

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andreas S PetersDepartment of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Maani HakimiDepartment of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Philipp ErhartDepartment of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Michael KeeseDepartment of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Thomas Schmitz-RixenDepartment of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Markus WortmannDepartment of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Moritz S BischoffDepartment of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Dittmar BöcklerDepartment of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. dittmar.boeckler@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Heidelberg University · DEGoethe University Frankfurt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRuptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) represents one of the most challenging emergencies in surgery. Open repair (OR) is associated with relevant morbidity and mortality and has not been reduced significantly over the last decade. The introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and its meanwhile common use in the treatment of rAAA has raised the demand for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in order to resolve a potential superiority of either OR or EVAR. PURPOSE: This review discusses the current treatment strategies in rAAA repair including diagnostics, peri-operative management and results of OR and EVAR, focussing on RCTs comparing both modalities.

resultsThirty-day mortality after OR and EVAR shows no significant difference in published RCTs. In particular with respect to OR, 30-day mortality was much lower than anticipated throughout all RCTs ranging from 18 to 37 %. EVAR for rAAA resulted in reduced in-hospital stay. Limitations of all except one RCT are low patient recruitment and exclusion of haemodynamically unstable patients.

conclusionsOR and EVAR need to be provided for rAAA. Despite lacking evidence, EVAR is the first choice treatment in experienced high-volume vascular centres. Low mortality rates in all RCTs raise the question if aortic surgery should be centralised.

Indexed as

Blood Vessel Prosthesis ImplantationEndovascular ProceduresAortic Aneurysm, AbdominalAortic RuptureHumansTreatment OutcomeAneurysmAortaEVARRCTRupture

Identifiers

PMID27055854
OpenAlexW2313506688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.