Comparison of the Short and Long-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Repair and Open Surgical Repair in the Treatment of Unruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Background Although the initial results of endovascular repair (EVAR) were promising, a comparison of its long-term efficacy against open surgical repair (OSR) remains largely elusive, and late-onset adverse events have not been systematically evaluated. Since OSR and EVAR are currently the only treatment options available in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), the main question arising in clinical practice is whether EVAR or OSR confers more favourable short and long-term outcomes for patients presenting with unruptured AAAs. Aims The present meta-analysis aims to draw a head-to-head comparison between EVAR and OSR and facilitate the formulation of an evidence-based approach to the clinical management of unruptured AAAs. Methods A systematic review was conducted using three databases to identify all relevant studies with comparative data on EVAR vs. OSR. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. Procedural outcomes, such as stroke, myocardial infarction, renal complications, rupture, and reintervention rates, were determined as secondary outcomes. Results Sixteen studies were included for comparative analysis, including four randomised-controlled trials and six non-randomised comparative clinical trials. EVAR conferred a clear perioperative survival advantage as compared to OSR (P < 0.00001). However, this survival advantage did not persist beyond two years post-procedure; all-cause mortality rates were comparable between the two treatment groups at two years (P = 0.09), four years (P = 0.58), and six years (P = 0.88) post-procedure. Although no statistically significant differences in aneurysm-related mortality, postoperative stroke, or myocardial infarction were identified, the OSR group had a statistically significant higher rate of postoperative renal complications. On the other hand, there was a statistically significant higher rate of rupture and reintervention following EVAR. Conclusion Whether the initial survival advantage afforded by EVAR is sufficient to justify the long-term risk of rupture, reintervention, and long-term mortality should be determined on a case-by-case basis by the multidisciplinary team overseeing the clinical care of the patient. Currently, it is reasonable to conclude that EVAR is as efficacious as OSR, but it would be invalid to claim it as superior. Ultimately, longer follow-up data must be presented before any definitive conclusions can be established for this potentially revolutionary technique. Presently, one can neither advocate nor refute EVAR over OSR.