Imperial College London

ProfessorJanetPowell

Faculty of MedicineDepartment of Surgery & Cancer

Visiting Professor
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)20 8846 7312j.powell

 
 
//

Location

 

4N17Charing Cross HospitalCharing Cross Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Patel:2018:10.3310/hta22050,
author = {Patel, R and Powell, JT and Sweeting, MJ and Epstein, DM and Barrett, JK and Greenhalgh, RM},
doi = {10.3310/hta22050},
journal = {HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT},
pages = {1--+},
title = {The UK EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) randomised controlled trials: long-term follow-up and cost-effectiveness analysis},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta22050},
volume = {22},
year = {2018}
}

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB - BackgroundShort-term survival benefits of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair (OR) of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms have been shown in randomised trials, but this early survival benefit is soon lost. Survival benefit of EVAR was unclear at follow-up to 10 years.ObjectiveTo assess the long-term efficacy of EVAR against OR in patients deemed fit and suitable for both procedures (EVAR trial 1; EVAR-1); and against no intervention in patients unfit for OR (EVAR trial 2; EVAR-2). To appraise the long-term significance of type II endoleak and define criteria for intervention.DesignTwo national, multicentre randomised controlled trials: EVAR-1 and EVAR-2.SettingPatients were recruited from 37 hospitals in the UK between 1 September 1999 and 31 August 2004.ParticipantsMen and women aged ≥ 60 years with an aneurysm of ≥ 5.5 cm (as identified by computed tomography scanning), anatomically suitable and fit for OR were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to either EVAR (n = 626) or OR (n = 626) in EVAR-1 using computer-generated sequences at the trial hub. Patients considered unfit were randomly assigned to EVAR (n = 197) or no intervention (n = 207) in EVAR-2. There was no blinding.InterventionsEVAR, OR or no intervention.Main outcome measuresThe primary end points were total and aneurysm-related mortality until mid-2015 for both trials. Secondary outcomes for EVAR-1 were reinterventions, costs and cost-effectiveness.ResultsIn EVAR-1, over a mean of 12.7 years (standard deviation 1.5 years; maximum 15.8 years), we recorded 9.3 deaths per 100 person-years in the EVAR group and 8.9 deaths per 100 person-years in the OR group [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.27; p = 0.14]. At 0–6 months after randomisation, patients in the EVAR group had a lower mortality (adjusted HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.02 for total mort
AU - Patel,R
AU - Powell,JT
AU - Sweeting,MJ
AU - Epstein,DM
AU - Barrett,JK
AU - Greenhalgh,RM
DO - 10.3310/hta22050
EP - 1
PY - 2018///
SN - 1366-5278
SP - 1
TI - The UK EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) randomised controlled trials: long-term follow-up and cost-effectiveness analysis
T2 - HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta22050
UR - http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000423816000001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=1ba7043ffcc86c417c072aa74d649202
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/62147
VL - 22
ER -