Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29503083›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery2018

Editor's Choice - Re-interventions After Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Report From the IMPROVE Randomised Trial.

Janet T Powell, Michael J Sweeting, Pinar Ulug, Matthew M Thompson, Robert J Hinchliffe, IMPROVE Trial Investigators

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Relevance of Type II Endoleak After Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Retrospective Single-Center Cohort Study.Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Janet T PowellVascular Surgery Research Group, Imperial College, London, UK. Electronic address: j.powell@imperial.ac.uk.
Michael J SweetingDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Pinar UlugVascular Surgery Research Group, Imperial College, London, UK.
Matthew M ThompsonSt George's Hospital, London, UK.
Robert J HinchliffeBristol Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
IMPROVE Trial Investigators

Funding

Department of Health 07/37/64
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

OBJECTIVE/

backgroundThe aim was to describe the re-interventions after endovascular and open repair of rupture, and investigate whether these were associated with aortic morphology.

methodsIn total, 502 patients from the IMPROVE randomised trial (ISRCTN48334791) with repair of rupture were followed-up for re-interventions for at least 3 years. Pre-operative aortic morphology was assessed in a core laboratory. Re-interventions were described by time (0-90 days, 3 months-3 years) as arterial or laparotomy related, respectively, and ranked for severity by surgeons and patients separately. Rare re-interventions to 1 year, were summarised across three ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm trials (IMPROVE, AJAX, and ECAR) and odds ratios (OR) describing differences were pooled via meta-analysis.

resultsRe-interventions were most common in the first 90 days. Overall rates were 186 and 226 per 100 person years for the endovascular strategy and open repair groups, respectively (p = .20) but between 3 months and 3 years (mid-term) the rates had slowed to 9.5 and 6.0 re-interventions per 100 person years, respectively (p = .090) and about one third of these were for a life threatening condition. In this latter, mid-term period, 42 of 313 remaining patients (13%) required at least one re-intervention, most commonly for endoleak or other endograft complication after treatment by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) (21 of 38 re-interventions), whereas distal aneurysms were the commonest reason (four of 23) for re-interventions after treatment by open repair. Arterial re-interventions within 3 years were associated with increasing common iliac artery diameter (OR 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.93; p = .004). Amputation, rare but ranked as the worst re-intervention by patients, was less common in the first year after treatment with EVAR (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.05-0.88) from meta-analysis of three trials.

conclusionThe rate of mid-term re-interventions after rupture is high, more than double that after elective EVAR and open repair, suggesting the need for bespoke surveillance protocols. Amputations are much less common in patients treated by EVAR than in those treated by open repair.

Indexed as

Aorta, AbdominalEndovascular ProceduresLaparotomyReoperationAgedAmputation, SurgicalAortic Aneurysm, AbdominalAortic RuptureEndoleakFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeeds AssessmentAbdominal aortic aneurysmMorphologyRe-interventionRupture

Identifiers

PMID29503083
PMCPMC5967970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.