Background: The advent of endovascular techniques has revolutionized the care of patients with uncomplicated abdominal aortic aneurysms. This analysis compares the overall survival and the freedom from reintervention rate between open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular repair (EVAR) in patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies including patients who underwent either OSR or EVAR for uncomplicated AAA. All randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched cohort studies reporting on the outcomes of interest were considered eligible for inclusion. The systematic search of the literature was performed by 2 independent investigators in accordance with the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. We conducted 1-stage and 2-stage meta-analyses with Kaplan-Meier-derived time-to-event data and meta-analysis with a random-effects model. Results: Thirteen studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 13 409 and 13 450 patients in the OSR and EVAR arms, respectively. Patients who underwent open repair had improved overall survival rates compared with those who underwent EVAR (hazard ratio [HR]=0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.88-0.98, p=0.004) during a mean follow-up of 53.8 (SD=29.8) months and this was validated by the 2-stage meta-analysis (HR=0.89, 95% CI=0.8-0.99, p=0.03, I ² =62.25%). Splitting timepoint analysis suggested that EVAR offers better survival outcome compared with OSR in the first 11 months following elective intervention (HR=1.37, 95% CI=1.22-1.54, p<0.0001), while OSR offers a significant survival advantage after the 11-month timepoint and up to 180 months (HR=0.84, 95% CI=0.8-0.89, p<0.0001). Similarly, freedom from reintervention was found to be significantly better in EVAR patients (HR=1.28, 95% CI=1.14-1.44, p<0.0001) within the first 30 days. After the first month postrepair, however, OSR demonstrated higher freedom-from-reintervention rates compared with EVAR that remained significant for up to 168 months during follow-up (HR=0.73, 95% CI=0.66-0.79, p<0.0001). Conclusions: Despite the first-year survival advantage of EVAR in patients undergoing elective AAA repair, OSR was associated with a late survival benefit and decreased risk for reintervention in long-term follow-up. Clinical Impact: Open surgical repair for uncomplicated abdominal aortic aneurysm offers better long-term outcomes in terms of survival and freedom from reintervention rate compared to the endovascular approach but in the first year it carries a higher risk of mortality. The novelty of our study lies that instead of comparing study-level effect estimates, we analyzed reconstructed individual patient-level data. This offered us the opportunity to perform our analyses with mathematically robust and flexible survival models, which was proved to be crucial since there was evidence of different hazard over time. Our findings underline the need for additional investigation to clarify the significance of open surgical repair when compared to the latest endovascular devices and techniques within the evolving era of minimally invasive procedures.

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared trans-carotid artery revascularization (TCAR) as an alternative approach to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with carotid artery disease. An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases including comparative studies with patients who underwent either TCAR or CEA. This meta-analysis is according to the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. Eight studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 7,606 and 7,048 patients in the TCAR and CEA groups, respectively. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56–1.56, P = .81) and stroke (OR: 0.92, 95%CI 0.70–1.22, P = .57) were similar between the two groups, with low heterogeneity. The odds of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.18–2.71, P = .01) and cranial nerve injury were significantly higher in patients undergoing CEA compared with TCAR (OR: 4.11, 95% CI: 2.59–6.51, P < .001). The subgroup analysis according to symptomatic pre-intervention status revealed no statistically significant difference regarding 30-day mortality (symptomatic OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.40–2.07, P = .82, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.46–1.86, P = .83) and stroke (symptomatic OR: 0.88, 95% CI:0.47–1.64, P = .68, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.64–1.35, P = .70). TCAR offers an alternative treatment for patients with carotid artery stenosis with comparable to CEA mortality and stroke rates during a 30-day post-operative period.

Background: Though anticoagulation is a well-established treatment for stroke prevention in cervical artery dissection, antiplatelet agents could offer comparable effectiveness and lower bleeding risk. This meta-analysis assesses the incidence of stroke and hemorrhagic events following various antithrombotic treatments. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases, including comparative studies involving patients with cervical artery dissection treated with anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents, and was registered in the PROSPERO database. The primary outcomes were stroke and hemorrhagic events. Prespecified random effects subgroup analysis was conducted to examine the impact of different types of anticoagulants and various antiplatelet treatment schemes, indicating the antiplatelet group as the reference for the odds ratio (OR). Results: A total of 22 studies reporting on 5180 patients treated with antiplatelets, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for prevention of stroke fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The incidence of stroke (OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.62–1.20, p = 0.38), intracranial hemorrhage (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.30–1.44, p = 0.30), and extracranial hemorrhage (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.23–2.41, p = 0.62) was not statistically significantly different between the anticoagulant and antiplatelet groups. The comparison of antiplatelets to VKAs (OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.79–2.72, p = 0.23) and exclusively aspirin to VKAs (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.48–3.29, p = 0.64) shows nonsignificant differences in terms of stroke. Overall, hemorrhagic events were less frequent in the antiplatelet compared to VKA groups (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.17–0.91, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Anticoagulation demonstrates a comparable incidence of stroke events, intra- and extracranial hemorrhage, and mortality with antiplatelet therapy. ( PROSPERO Registration No.: CRD42024535906 )

Objectives: New endografts have improved clinical outcomes in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treated with the endovascular approach (EVAR). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Endurant endograft for EVAR. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane for studies including patients treated with EVAR for unruptured AAA. This meta-analysis follows PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42024621517). A Kaplan–Meier-derived individual patient data analysis assessed the survival, the freedom from reintervention, the freedom from type Ia endoleak (ETIa), and the aneurysm-related mortality rates. The analysis reflects aggregated survival data, and the at-risk population decreases over time due to censoring and loss to follow-up. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were digitized to extract survival/mortality values at specific time points, and number-at-risk tables or total events were used to improve time-to-event accuracy. A subgroup analysis compared the outcomes of treatment within versus outside the instructions for use (IFU). Results: Twenty-six studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 5901 patients in terms of survival, with survival rates at 1, 5, and 10 years of follow-up at 94.4%, 71.6%, and 42.4%, respectively, while overall aneurysm-related mortality rates were 0.8%, 2.3%, and 7.6%, respectively. Freedom from secondary reintervention was 94.9% at 1 year, 81.9% at 5 years, and 43.7% at 10 years, while freedom from type Ia endoleak was 98.8%, 94.6%, and 85.6%, respectively. Comparing treatment within versus outside the IFU, in terms of survival (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.75–1.16, p = 0.53), freedom from reintervention (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.63–1.15, p = 0.29) and mortality due to aneurysm-related complication (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.34–1.84, p = 0.58) revealed no statistically significant difference. Conclusions: The Endurant endograft provides acceptable rates of survival, freedom from secondary intervention, aneurysm-related mortality rates, and freedom from ETIa; however, continuous long-term follow-up surveillance is necessary.