|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|
|
a Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
Key Words: endovascular • aneurysm • threshold • aorta
Address for correspondence: Marc Schermerhorn, M.D., Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 110 Francis St. 5B, Boston, MA 02215, USA. Voice: 617-632-9971; fax: 617-632-7977. e-mail: mscherm{at}bidmc.harvard.edu
Two randomized trials have demonstrated the safety of waiting until abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter reaches 5.5 cm for repair in most patients. Other recent randomized trials have demonstrated lower perioperative mortality and morbidity with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared to open surgery. Therefore, it is logical to assume that endovascular repair may change the appropriate threshold for intervention. However, endovascular repair is not as durable as open surgery and is associated with ongoing risks of rupture and reintervention. Decision analysis based on data available in 1998 showed that endovascular repair should not change the threshold for intervention. Since that time retrospective data have emerged to suggest that outcomes with endovascular repair are improved in smaller AAAs, although this may simply represent selection bias and the natural history of small AAAs. Randomized trials are appropriate to determine whether improved endovascular outcomes in small AAAs reduce late rupture and reintervention enough to justify early intervention in patients with appropriate anatomy. In the absence of data from these trials, the threshold for intervention should not be changed.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
