Although the initial results of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms were promising, current evidence from controlled studies does not convincingly show a reduction in 30-day mortality relative to that achieved with open repair. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing open repair with endovascular repair in 345 patients who had received a diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5 cm in diameter and who were considered suitable candidates for both techniques. The outcome events analyzed were operative (30-day) mortality and two composite end points of operative mortality and severe complications and operative mortality and moderate or severe complications. The operative mortality rate was 4.6 percent in the open-repair group (8 of 174 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.0 to 8.9 percent) and 1.2 percent in the endovascular-repair group (2 of 171 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1 to 4.2 percent), resulting in a risk ratio of 3.9 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 32.9). The combined rate of operative mortality and severe complications was 9.8 percent in the open-repair group (17 of 174 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 5.8 to 15.2 percent) and 4.7 percent in the endovascular-repair group (8 of 171 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.0 to 9.0 percent), resulting in a risk ratio of 2.1 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 5.4). On the basis of the overall results of this trial, endovascular repair is preferable to open repair in patients who have an abdominal aortic aneurysm that is at least 5 cm in diameter. Long-term follow-up is needed to determine whether this advantage is sustained.

Necrotizing pancreatitis with infected necrotic tissue is associated with a high rate of complications and death. Standard treatment is open necrosectomy. The outcome may be improved by a minimally invasive step-up approach.

Background: Little is known about the efficacy and safety of renal artery stenting in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) and impaired renal function. Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of stent placement in patients with ARAS and impaired renal function. Design: Randomized clinical trial. Randomization was centralized and computer generated, and allocation was assigned by e-mail. Patients, providers, and persons who assessed outcomes were not blinded to treatment assignment. Setting: 10 European medical centers. Participants: 140 patients with creatinine clearance less than 80 mL/min per 1.73 m² and ARAS of 50% or greater. Intervention: Stent placement and medical treatment (64 patients) or medical treatment only (76 patients). Medical treatment consisted of antihypertensive treatment, a statin, and aspirin. Measurements: The primary end point was a 20% or greater decrease in creatinine clearance. Secondary end points included safety and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Results: Forty-six of 64 patients assigned to stent placement had the procedure. Ten of the 64 patients (16%) in the stent placement group and 16 patients (22%) in the medication group reached the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.33 to 1.61]). Serious complications occurred in the stent group, including 2 procedure-related deaths (3%), 1 late death secondary to an infected hematoma, and 1 patient who required dialysis secondary to cholesterol embolism. The groups did not differ for other secondary end points. Limitation: Many patients were falsely identified as having renal artery stenosis greater than 50% by noninvasive imaging and did not ultimately require stenting. Conclusion: Stent placement with medical treatment had no clear effect on progression of impaired renal function but led to a small number of significant procedure-related complications. The study findings favor a conservative approach to patients with ARAS, focused on cardiovascular risk factor management and avoiding stenting. Primary Funding Source: Dutch Kidney Foundation, Bayer, Cordis, and Pfizer.

Background and Purpose— In the discussion on the cost-effectiveness of screening, precise estimates of severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis are vital. Accordingly, we assessed the prevalence of moderate and severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis by age and sex using pooled cohort data. Methods— We performed an individual participant data meta-analysis (23 706 participants) of 4 population-based studies (Malmö Diet and Cancer Study, Tromsø, Carotid Atherosclerosis Progression Study, and Cardiovascular Health Study). Outcomes of interest were asymptomatic moderate (≥50%) and severe carotid stenosis (≥70%). Results— Prevalence of moderate asymptomatic carotid stenosis ranged from 0.2% (95% CI, 0.0% to 0.4%) in men aged <50 years to 7.5% (5.2% to 10.5%) in men aged ≥80 years. For women, this prevalence increased from 0% (0% to 0.2%) to 5.0% (3.1% to 7.5%). Prevalence of severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis ranged from 0.1% (0.0% to 0.3%) in men aged <50 years to 3.1% (1.7% to 5.3%) in men aged ≥80. For women, this prevalence increased from 0% (0.0% to 0.2%) to 0.9% (0.3% to 2.4%). Conclusions— The prevalence of severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis in the general population ranges from 0% to 3.1%, which is useful information in the discussion on the cost-effectiveness of screening.