Do no harm

Elective endovascular vs. open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients aged 80 years and older: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Endovascular treatment (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is thought to be of benefit, particularly in patients aged ≥80 years. This issue was investigated in the present meta-analysis.

DESIGN

The study design involved a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of data on elective EVAR vs. open repair of AAA in patients aged ≥80 years were performed.

RESULTS

Six observational studies reporting on 13,419 patients were included in the present analysis. Pooled analysis showed higher immediate postoperative mortality after open repair compared with EVAR (risk ratio 3.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.19-4.68; risk difference, 6.2%, 95%CI 5.4-7.0%). The pooled immediate mortality rate after open repair was 8.6%, whereas it was 2.3% after EVAR. Open repair was associated with a significantly higher risk of postoperative cardiac, pulmonary and renal complications. Pooled analysis of three studies showed similar overall survival at 3 years after EVAR and open repair (risk ratio 1.10, 95%CI 0.77-1.57).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that elective EVAR in patients aged ≥80 years is associated with significantly lower immediate postoperative mortality and morbidity than open repair and should be considered the treatment of choice in these fragile patients. These results indicate also that, when EVAR is not feasible, open repair can be performed with acceptable immediate and late survival in patients at high risk of aneurysm rupture.