The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Endovascular versus Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Few data are available on the long-term outcome of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm as compared with open repair. METHODS: From 1999 through 2004 at 37 hospitals in the United Kingdom, we randomly assigned 1252 patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms (> or = 5.5 cm in diameter) to undergo either endovascular or open repair; 626 patients were assigned to each group. Patients were followed for rates of death, graft-related complications, reinterventions, and resource use until the end of 2009. Logistic regression and Cox regression were used to compare outcomes in the two groups. RESULTS: The 30-day operative mortality was 1.8% in the endovascular-repair group and 4.3% in the open-repair group (adjusted odds ratio for endovascular repair as compared with open repair, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.87; P=0.02). The endovascular-repair group had an early benefit with respect to aneurysm-related mortality, but the benefit was lost by the end of the study, at least partially because of fatal endograft ruptures (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.49; P=0.73). By the end of follow-up, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of death from any cause (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.23; P=0.72). The rates of graft-related complications and reinterventions were higher with endovascular repair, and new complications occurred up to 8 years after randomization, contributing to higher overall costs. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, randomized trial, endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a significantly lower operative mortality than open surgical repair. However, no differences were seen in total mortality or aneurysm-related mortality in the long term. Endovascular repair was associated with increased rates of graft-related complications and reinterventions and was more costly. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN55703451.)
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Erbel (2014) · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu281 · Cited by 4,451
Chaikof, E. L., Dalman, R. L., Eskandari, M. K., Jackson, B. M., Lee, W. A., Mansour, M. A., Mastracci, T. M., Mell, M., Murad, M. H., Nguyen, L. L., et al. (2018) · Journal of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2017.10.044 · Cited by 2,751
Isselbacher, E. M., Preventza, O., Hamilton Black, J., Augoustides, J. G., Beck, A. W., Bolen, M. A., Braverman, A. C., Bray, B. E., Brown-Zimmerman, M. M., Chen, E. P., et al. (2022) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001106 · Cited by 2,082
Wanhainen, A., Van Herzeele, I., Bastos Goncalves, F., Bellmunt Montoya, S., Berard, X., Boyle, J. R., D’Oria, M., Prendes, C. F., Karkos, C. D., Kazimierczak, A., et al. (2024) · European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2023.11.002 · Cited by 1,207
Björck, M., Earnshaw, J. J., Acosta, S., Bastos Gonçalves, F., Cochennec, F., Debus, E. S., Hinchliffe, R., Jongkind, V., Koelemay, M. J. W., Menyhei, G., et al. (2020) · European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.09.006 · Cited by 544
Metadata
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2010-05-20
- Volume
- 362
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 1863-1871
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2107151507
- Cited by
- 1,420
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 99.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Endovascular versus Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa0909305
- The paper
- Endovascular versus Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. (2010). New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0909305
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.