ReviewMedical science monitor basic research2016
Endovascular vs. Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.
Review in Medical science monitor basic research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Effect of balloon occlusion combined with intra-sac injection of thrombin in the treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2024Article
- Comparative study of the consequences of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair surgery using open and endovascular surgical methods.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2023Article
- Initial Experience and Potential Advantages of AFX2 Bifurcated Endograft System: Comparative Case Series.Vascular specialist international · 2019Article
- Alterations in phenotype and gene expression of adult human aneurysmal smooth muscle cells by exogenous nitric oxide.Experimental cell research · 2019Article
- Aortic Graft Infection: Graphene Shows the Way to an Infection-Resistant Vascular Graft.Frontiers in surgery · 2017Article
- Valve-in-Valve Replacement Using a Sutureless Aortic Valve.The American journal of case reports · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients presenting with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms are most often treated with open repair despite the fact that endovascular aneurysm repair is a less invasive and widely accepted method with clear benefits for elective aortic aneurysm patients. A debate exists regarding the definitive benefit in endovascular repair for patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. The aim of this literature review was to determine if any trends exist in favor of either open or endovascular repair. MATERIAL AND
methodsA literature search was performed using PUBMED, OVID, and Google Scholar databases. The search yielded 64 publications.
resultsOut of 64 publications, 25 were retrospective studies, 12 were population-based, 21 were prospective, 5 were the results of RCTs, and 1 was a case-series. Sixty-one studies reported on early mortality and provided data comparing endovascular repair (rEVAR) and open repair (rOR) for ruptured abdominal aneurysm groups. Twenty-nine of these studies reported that rEVAR has a lower early mortality rate. Late mortality after rEVAR compared to that of rOR was reported in 21 studies for a period of 3 to 60 months. Results of 61.9% of the studies found no difference in late mortality rates between these 2 groups. Thirty-nine publications reported on the incidence of complications. Approximately half of these publications support that the rEVAR group has a lower complication rate and the other half found no difference between the groups. Length of hospital stay has been reported to be shorter for rEVAR in most studies. Blood loss and need for transfusion of either red cells or fresh frozen plasma was consistently lower in the rEVAR group.
conclusionsDifferences between the included publications affect the outcomes. Randomized control trials have not been able to provide clear conclusions. rEVAR can now be considered a safe method of treating rAAA, and is at least equal to the well-established rOR method.
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.