Impact of randomized trials comparing conventional and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair on clinical practice.
SourceJournal of Endovascular Therapy, 14, 4, (2007), pp. 536-40
Article / Letter to editor
Display more detailsDisplay less details
Journal of Endovascular Therapy
SubjectNCEBP 14: Cardiovascular diseases; UMCN 2.1: Heart, lung and circulation
PURPOSE: To report a retrospective study into the effects of trials on clinical decision-making regarding abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patients suitable for both conventional open (OR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 1400 Dutch surgeons and trainees. Interviewees had to choose between OR and EVAR for AAA patients with and without comorbidity. Specifically, their preferences before and after the publication of 2 randomized trials (EVAR-1 and DREAM) were polled. RESULTS: Of the 524 (37%) questionnaires returned, 223 (43%) respondents treated AAA patients. Before publication of the trials, 160 (72%) preferred OR for the patient without comorbidity and 169 (76%) preferred EVAR for the patient with comorbidity. In total, 72 (32%) respondents changed their preference after the trials were published; however, there was no overall major shift. Focusing on the different cases revealed that the OR preference was significantly enhanced for the patient without comorbidity (p<0.01), while the EVAR preference was significantly enhanced for the patient with comorbidity (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The randomized trials have not induced major overall changes in surgical decision-making for AAA patients suitable for both EVAR and OR.
Upload full text
Use your RU credentials (u/z-number and password) to log in with SURFconext to upload a file for processing by the repository team.