Strategy of endovascular versus open repair for patients with clinical diagnosis of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: the IMPROVE RCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a common vascular emergency. The mortality from emergency endovascular repair may be much lower than the 40–50% reported for open surgery. Objective To assess whether or not a strategy of endovascular repair compared with open repair reduces 30-day and mid-term mortality (including costs and cost-effectiveness) among patients with a suspected ruptured AAA. Design Randomised controlled trial, with computer-generated telephone randomisation of participants in a 1 : 1 ratio, using variable block size, stratified by centre and without blinding. Setting Vascular centres in the UK (n = 29) and Canada (n = 1) between 2009 and 2013. Participants A total of 613 eligible participants (480 men) with a ruptured aneurysm, clinically diagnosed at the trial centre. Interventions A total of 316 participants were randomised to the endovascular strategy group (immediate computerised tomography followed by endovascular repair if anatomically suitable or, if not suitable, open repair) and 297 were randomised to the open repair group (computerised tomography optional). Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality, with 30-day reinterventions, costs and disposal as early secondary outcome measures. Later outcome measures included 1- and 3-year mortality, reinterventions, quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness. Results The 30-day mortality was 35.4% in the endovascular strategy group and 37.4% in the open repair group [odds ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.28;p = 0.62, and, after adjustment for age, sex and Hardman index, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.33]. The endovascular strategy appeared to be more effective in women than in men (interaction testp = 0.02). More discharges in the endovascular strategy group (94%) than in the open repair group (77%) were directly to home (p < 0.001). Average 30-day costs were similar between groups, with the mean difference in costs being –£1186 (95% CI –£2997 to £625), favouring the endovascular strategy group. After 1 year, survival and reintervention rates were similar in the two groups, QoL (at both 3 and 12 months) was higher in the endovascular strategy group and the mean cost difference was –£2329 (95% CI –£5489 to £922). At 3 years, mortality was 48% and 56% in the endovascular strategy group and open repair group, respectively (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00;p = 0.053), with a stronger benefit for the endovascular strategy in the subgroup of 502 participants in whom repair was started for a proven rupture (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89;p = 0.009), whereas aneurysm-related reintervention rates were non-significantly higher in this group. At 3 years, considering all participants, there was a mean difference of 0.174 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% CI 0.002 to 0.353 QALYs) and, among the endovascular strategy group, a cost difference of –£2605 (95% CI –£5966 to £702), leading to 88% of estimates in the cost-effectiveness plane being in the quadrant showing the endovascular strategy to be ‘dominant’. Limitations Because of the pragmatic design of this trial, 33 participants in the endovascular strategy group and 26 in the open repair group breached randomisation allocation. Conclusions The endovascular strategy was not associated with a significant reduction in either 30-day mortality or cost but was associated with faster participant recovery. By 3 years, the endovascular strategy showed a survival and QALY gain and was highly likely to be cost-effective. Future research could include improving resuscitation for older persons with circulatory collapse, the impact of local anaesthesia and emergency consent procedures. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791 and NCT00746122. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".