Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,077

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Outcomes Following Endovascular vs Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm<subtitle>A Randomized Trial</subtitle>

Lederle, Frank A.·2009·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Limited data are available to assess whether endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) improves short-term outcomes compared with traditional open repair. OBJECTIVE: To compare postoperative outcomes up to 2 years after endovascular or open repair of AAA in a planned interim report of a 9-year trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A randomized, multicenter clinical trial of 881 veterans (aged > or = 49 years) from 42 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers with eligible AAA who were candidates for both elective endovascular repair and open repair of AAA. The trial is ongoing and this report describes the period between October 15, 2002, and October 15, 2008. INTERVENTION: Elective endovascular (n = 444) or open (n = 437) repair of AAA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Procedure failure, secondary therapeutic procedures, length of stay, quality of life, erectile dysfunction, major morbidity, and mortality. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 1.8 years. Perioperative mortality (30 days or inpatient) was lower for endovascular repair (0.5% vs 3.0%; P = .004), but there was no significant difference in mortality at 2 years (7.0% vs 9.8%, P = .13). Patients in the endovascular repair group had reduced median procedure time (2.9 vs 3.7 hours), blood loss (200 vs 1000 mL), transfusion requirement (0 vs 1.0 units), duration of mechanical ventilation (3.6 vs 5.0 hours), hospital stay (3 vs 7 days), and intensive care unit stay (1 vs 4 days), but required substantial exposure to fluoroscopy and contrast. There were no differences between the 2 groups in major morbidity, procedure failure, secondary therapeutic procedures, aneurysm-related hospitalizations, health-related quality of life, or erectile function. CONCLUSIONS: In this report of short-term outcomes after elective AAA repair, perioperative mortality was low for both procedures and lower for endovascular than open repair. The early advantage of endovascular repair was not offset by increased morbidity or mortality in the first 2 years after repair. Longer-term outcome data are needed to fully assess the relative merits of the 2 procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00094575.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2009.1426

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 23 references

Cited by

See all 1,077

Metadata

Authors
Lederle, F. A.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2009-10-14
Volume
302
Issue
14
Pages
1535
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2132380731
Cited by
1,077
References
23
FWCI
51.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Outcomes Following Endovascular vs Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm<subtitle>A Randomized Trial</subtitle>. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2009.1426
The paper
Lederle, F. A. (2009). Outcomes Following Endovascular vs Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm<subtitle>A Randomized Trial</subtitle>. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1426

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.