Search

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

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to compare the costs and effects of three noninvasive imaging tests as the initial imaging test in the diagnostic workup of patients with peripheral arterial disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Of 984 patients assessed for eligibility, 514 patients with peripheral arterial disease were randomized to MR angiography (MRA) or duplex sonography in three hospitals and to MRA or CT angiography (CTA) in one hospital. The outcome measures included the clinical utility, functional patient outcomes, quality of life, and actual diagnostic and therapeutic costs related to the initial imaging test during 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS. With adjustment for potentially predictive baseline variables, the learning curve, and hospital setting, a significantly higher confidence and less additional imaging were found for MRA and CTA compared with duplex sonography. No statistically significant differences were found in improvement in functional patient outcomes and quality of life among the groups. The total costs were significantly higher for MRA and duplex sonography than for CTA. CONCLUSION. The results suggest that both CTA and MRA are clinically more useful than duplex sonography and that CTA leads to cost savings compared with both MRA and duplex s