Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 713

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Long-Term Comparison of Endovascular and Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Open access
Lederle, Frank A., Freischlag, Julie A., Kyriakides, Tassos C., Matsumura, Jon S., Padberg, Frank T., Kohler, Ted R., Kougias, Panagiotis, Jean-Claude, Jessie M., Cikrit, Dolores F., Swanson, Kathleen M.·2012·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Whether elective endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm reduces long-term morbidity and mortality, as compared with traditional open repair, remains uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 881 patients with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms who were candidates for both procedures to either endovascular repair (444) or open repair (437) and followed them for up to 9 years (mean, 5.2). Patients were selected from 42 Veterans Affairs medical centers and were 49 years of age or older at the time of registration. RESULTS: More than 95% of the patients underwent the assigned repair. For the primary outcome of all-cause mortality, 146 deaths occurred in each group (hazard ratio with endovascular repair versus open repair, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.22; P=0.81). The previously reported reduction in perioperative mortality with endovascular repair was sustained at 2 years (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.98; P=0.04) and at 3 years (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.00; P=0.05) but not thereafter. There were 10 aneurysm-related deaths in the endovascular-repair group (2.3%) versus 16 in the open-repair group (3.7%) (P=0.22). Six aneurysm ruptures were confirmed in the endovascular-repair group versus none in the open-repair group (P=0.03). A significant interaction was observed between age and type of treatment (P=0.006); survival was increased among patients under 70 years of age in the endovascular-repair group but tended to be better among those 70 years of age or older in the open-repair group. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair and open repair resulted in similar long-term survival. The perioperative survival advantage with endovascular repair was sustained for several years, but rupture after repair remained a concern. Endovascular repair led to increased long-term survival among younger patients but not among older patients, for whom a greater benefit from the endovascular approach had been expected. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development; OVER ClinicalTrials.gov number, 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 · 10.1056/nejmoa1207481

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 713

Metadata

Authors
Lederle, F. A., Freischlag, J. A., Kyriakides, T. C., Matsumura, J. S., Padberg, F. T., Kohler, T. R., Kougias, P., Jean-Claude, J. M., Cikrit, D. F., & Swanson, K. M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2012-11-22
Volume
367
Issue
21
Pages
1988-1997
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W1970202619
Cited by
713
References
1
FWCI
38.42
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: Long-Term Comparison of Endovascular and Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1207481
The paper
Lederle, F. A., Freischlag, J. A., Kyriakides, T. C., Matsumura, J. S., Padberg, F. T., Kohler, T. R., Kougias, P., Jean-Claude, J. M., Cikrit, D. F., & Swanson, K. M. (2012). Long-Term Comparison of Endovascular and Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1207481

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.