Endovascular strategy or open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: one-year outcomes from the IMPROVE randomized trial.

AIMS: To report the longer term outcomes following either a strategy of endovascular repair first or open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, which are necessary for both patient and clinical decision-making. METHODS AND RESULTS: This pragmatic multicentre (29 UK and 1 Canada) trial randomized 613 patients with a clinical diagnosis of ruptured aneurysm; 316 to an endovascular first strategy (if aortic morphology is suitable, open repair if not) and 297 to open repair. The principal 1-year outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes were re-interventions, hospital discharge, health-related quality-of-life (QoL) (EQ-5D), costs, Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness [incremental net benefit (INB)]. At 1 year, all-cause mortality was 41.1% for the endovascular strategy group and 45.1% for the open repair group, odds ratio 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62, 1.17], P = 0.325, with similar re-intervention rates in each group. The endovascular strategy group and open repair groups had average total hospital stays of 17 and 26 days, respectively, P < 0.001. Patients surviving rupture had higher average EQ-5D utility scores in the endovascular strategy vs. open repair groups, mean differences 0.087 (95% CI 0.017, 0.158), 0.068 (95% CI -0.004, 0.140) at 3 and 12 months, respectively. There were indications that QALYs were higher and costs lower for the endovascular first strategy, combining to give an INB of £3877 (95% CI £253, £7408) or €4356 (95% CI €284, €8323). CONCLUSION: An endovascular first strategy for management of ruptured aneurysms does not offer a survival benefit over 1 year but offers patients faster discharge with better QoL and is cost-effective. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 48334791

The effect of aortic morphology on peri-operative mortality of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

Aims To investigate whether aneurysm shape and extent, which indicate whether a patient with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) is eligible for endovascular repair (EVAR), influence the outcome of both EVAR and open surgical repair. Methods and results The influence of six morphological parameters (maximum aortic diameter, aneurysm neck diameter, length and conicality, proximal neck angle, and maximum common iliac diameter) on mortality and reinterventions within 30 days was investigated in rAAA patients randomized before morphological assessment in the Immediate Management of the Patient with Rupture: Open Versus Endovascular strategies (IMPROVE) trial. Patients with a proven diagnosis of rAAA, who underwent repair and had their admission computerized tomography scan submitted to the core laboratory, were included. Among 458 patients (364 men, mean age 76 years), who had either EVAR (n = 177) or open repair (n = 281) started, there were 155 deaths and 88 re-interventions within 30 days of randomization analysed according to a pre-specified plan. The mean maximum aortic diameter was 8.6 cm. There were no substantial correlations between the six morphological variables. Aneurysm neck length was shorter in those undergoing open repair (vs. EVAR). Aneurysm neck length (mean 23.3, SD 16.1 mm) was inversely associated with mortality for open repair and overall: adjusted OR 0.72 (95% CI 0.57, 0.92) for each 16 mm (SD) increase in length. There were no convincing associations of morphological parameters with reinterventions. Conclusion Short aneurysm necks adversely influence mortality after open repair of rAAA and preclude conventional EVAR. This may help explain why observational studies, but not randomized trials, have shown an early survival benefit for EVAR. Clinical trial registration: ISRCTN 48334791

A core outcome set for post-COVID-19 condition in adults for use in clinical practice and research: an international Delphi consensus study

Health consequences that persist beyond the acute infection phase of COVID-19, termed post-COVID-19 condition (also commonly known as long COVID), vary widely and represent a growing global health challenge. Research on post-COVID-19 condition is expanding but, at present, no agreement exists on the health outcomes that should be measured in people living with the condition. To address this gap, we conducted an international consensus study, which included a comprehensive literature review and classification of outcomes for post-COVID-19 condition that informed a two-round online modified Delphi process followed by an online consensus meeting to finalise the core outcome set (COS). 1535 participants from 71 countries were involved, with 1148 individuals participating in both Delphi rounds. Eleven outcomes achieved consensus for inclusion in the final COS: fatigue; pain; post-exertion symptoms; work or occupational and study changes; survival; and functioning, symptoms, and conditions for each of cardiovascular, respiratory, nervous system, cognitive, mental health, and physical outcomes. Recovery was included a priori because it was a relevant outcome that was part of a previously published COS on COVID-19. The next step in this COS development exercise will be to establish the instruments that are most appropriate to measure these core outcomes. This international consensus-based COS should provide a framework for standardised assessment of adults with post-COVID-19 condition, aimed at facilitating clinical care and research worldwide