Interpretation of the results of OVER in the context of EVAR Trial, DREAM, and the EUROSTAR registry

Mahmoud B. Malas, Julie A. Freischlag

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Several early studies have shown the benefit of endovascular aneurysm repair in reducing procedure-related mortality and morbidity of open aneurysm repair. Three prospective randomized trials have addressed the advantages and disadvantages of the two procedures. These studies had shown some conflicting findings in survival and complications. We reviewed the largest registry for endovascular abdominal aortic repair and the three randomized trials to evaluate the similarities and differences in their outcomes. Cross-comparison of operative, aneurysm-related and all-cause mortality is presented. Patient characteristics, device specifications, procedure morbidity and reintervention rate of each study are evaluated.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)165-169
Number of pages5
JournalSeminars in Vascular Surgery
Volume23
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Aneurysm
Registries
Morbidity
Mortality
Equipment and Supplies
Survival

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Interpretation of the results of OVER in the context of EVAR Trial, DREAM, and the EUROSTAR registry. / Malas, Mahmoud B.; Freischlag, Julie A.

In: Seminars in Vascular Surgery, Vol. 23, No. 3, 09.2010, p. 165-169.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Malas, Mahmoud B. ; Freischlag, Julie A. / Interpretation of the results of OVER in the context of EVAR Trial, DREAM, and the EUROSTAR registry. In: Seminars in Vascular Surgery. 2010 ; Vol. 23, No. 3. pp. 165-169.
@article{2c7197a151bb4f738802da29c69e46d7,
title = "Interpretation of the results of OVER in the context of EVAR Trial, DREAM, and the EUROSTAR registry",
abstract = "Several early studies have shown the benefit of endovascular aneurysm repair in reducing procedure-related mortality and morbidity of open aneurysm repair. Three prospective randomized trials have addressed the advantages and disadvantages of the two procedures. These studies had shown some conflicting findings in survival and complications. We reviewed the largest registry for endovascular abdominal aortic repair and the three randomized trials to evaluate the similarities and differences in their outcomes. Cross-comparison of operative, aneurysm-related and all-cause mortality is presented. Patient characteristics, device specifications, procedure morbidity and reintervention rate of each study are evaluated.",
author = "Malas, {Mahmoud B.} and Freischlag, {Julie A.}",
year = "2010",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2010.05.009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "165--169",
journal = "Seminars in Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0895-7967",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interpretation of the results of OVER in the context of EVAR Trial, DREAM, and the EUROSTAR registry

AU - Malas, Mahmoud B.

AU - Freischlag, Julie A.

PY - 2010/9

Y1 - 2010/9

N2 - Several early studies have shown the benefit of endovascular aneurysm repair in reducing procedure-related mortality and morbidity of open aneurysm repair. Three prospective randomized trials have addressed the advantages and disadvantages of the two procedures. These studies had shown some conflicting findings in survival and complications. We reviewed the largest registry for endovascular abdominal aortic repair and the three randomized trials to evaluate the similarities and differences in their outcomes. Cross-comparison of operative, aneurysm-related and all-cause mortality is presented. Patient characteristics, device specifications, procedure morbidity and reintervention rate of each study are evaluated.

AB - Several early studies have shown the benefit of endovascular aneurysm repair in reducing procedure-related mortality and morbidity of open aneurysm repair. Three prospective randomized trials have addressed the advantages and disadvantages of the two procedures. These studies had shown some conflicting findings in survival and complications. We reviewed the largest registry for endovascular abdominal aortic repair and the three randomized trials to evaluate the similarities and differences in their outcomes. Cross-comparison of operative, aneurysm-related and all-cause mortality is presented. Patient characteristics, device specifications, procedure morbidity and reintervention rate of each study are evaluated.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77956320203&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77956320203&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2010.05.009

DO - 10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2010.05.009

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 165

EP - 169

JO - Seminars in Vascular Surgery

JF - Seminars in Vascular Surgery

SN - 0895-7967

IS - 3

ER -