Meta-analysis of individual-patient data from EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE trials comparing outcomes of endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm over 5 years

Background: The erosion of the early mortality advantage of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm remains without a satisfactory explanation. Methods: An individual-patient data meta-analysis of four multicentre randomized trials of EVAR versus open repair was conducted to a prespecified analysis plan, reporting on mortality, aneurysm-related mortality and reintervention. Results: The analysis included 2783 patients, with 14 245 person-years of follow-up (median 5·5 years). Early (0–6 months after randomization) mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (46 of 1393 versus 73 of 1390 deaths; pooled hazard ratio 0·61, 95 per cent c.i. 0·42 to 0·89; P = 0·010), primarily because 30-day operative mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (16 deaths versus 40 for open repair; pooled odds ratio 0·40, 95 per cent c.i. 0·22 to 0·74). Later (within 3 years) the survival curves converged, remaining converged to 8 years. Beyond 3 years, aneurysm-related mortality was significantly higher in the EVAR groups (19 deaths versus 3 for open repair; pooled hazard ratio 5·16, 1·49 to 17·89; P = 0·010). Patients with moderate renal dysfunction or previous coronary artery disease had no early survival advantage under EVAR. Those with peripheral artery disease had lower mortality under open repair (39 deaths versus 62 for EVAR; P = 0·022) in the period from 6 months to 4 years after randomization. Conclusion: The early survival advantage in the EVAR group, and its subsequent erosion, were confirmed. Over 5 years, patients of marginal fitness had no early survival advantage from EVAR compared with open repair. Aneurysm-related mortality and patients with low ankle : brachial pressure index contributed to the erosion of the early survival advantage for the EVAR group. Trial registration numbers: EVAR-1, ISRCTN55703451; DREAM (Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management), NCT00421330; ACE (Anévrysme de l'aorte abdominale, Chirurgie versus Endoprothèse), NCT00224718; OVER (Open Versus Endovascular Repair Trial for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms), NCT00094575

Status Update and Interim Results from the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2)

Objectives: ACST-2 is currently the largest trial ever conducted to compare carotid artery stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis requiring revascularization. Methods: Patients are entered into ACST-2 when revascularization is felt to be clearly indicated, when CEA and CAS are both possible, but where there is substantial uncertainty as to which is most appropriate. Trial surgeons and interventionalists are expected to use their usual techniques and CE-approved devices. We report baseline characteristics and blinded combined interim results for 30-day mortality and major morbidity for 986 patients in the ongoing trial up to September 2012. Results: A total of 986 patients (687 men, 299 women), mean age 68.7 years (SD ± 8.1) were randomized equally to CEA or CAS. Most (96%) had ipsilateral stenosis of 70-99% (median 80%) with contralateral stenoses of 50-99% in 30% and contralateral occlusion in 8%. Patients were on appropriate medical treatment. For 691 patients undergoing intervention with at least 1-month follow-up and Rankin scoring at 6 months for any stroke, the overall serious cardiovascular event rate of periprocedural (within 30 days) disabling stroke, fatal myocardial infarction, and death at 30 days was 1.0%. Conclusions: Early ACST-2 results suggest contemporary carotid intervention for asymptomatic stenosis has a low risk of serious morbidity and mortality, on par with other recent trials. The trial continues to recruit, to monitor periprocedural events and all types of stroke, aiming to randomize up to 5,000 patients to determine any differential outcomes between interventions. Clinical trial: ISRCTN21144362. © 2013 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified