Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Randomized trials have shown an initial survival benefit of endovascular over conventional open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair but no long-term difference up to 6 years after repair. Longer follow-up may be required to demonstrate the cumulative negative impact on survival of higher reintervention rates associated with endovascular repair. METHODS: We updated the results of the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing open with endovascular aneurysm repair, up to 15 years of follow-up. Survival and reinterventions were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Causes of death and secondary interventions were compared by use of an events per person-year analysis. RESULTS: There were 178 patients randomized to open and 173 to endovascular repair. Twelve years after randomization, the cumulative overall survival rates were 42.2% for open and 38.5% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 3.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -6.7 to 14.1; P = .48). The cumulative rates of freedom from reintervention were 78.9% for open repair and 62.2% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 16.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 5.8-27.6; P = .01). No differences were observed in causes of death. Cardiovascular and malignant disease account for the majority of deaths after prolonged follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: During 12 years of follow-up, there was no survival difference between patients who underwent open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, despite a continuously increasing number of reinterventions in the endovascular repair group. Endograft durability and the need for continued endograft surveillance remain key issues.
